Finalizing the dialogue with newsgroup Megalomaniacs (change of Subject...)

[sasan3]

It would be great if we could all suggest variations of this caluse
that we feel is reasonable to be included in the newsgroup FAQ.
Hopefully we can come up with a version that we all, including the
silent majority, feel leads to improving out collective experiences in
this newsgroup.

Thanks for your participation.

"to existing members of the group: please understand that for every
expert in a field, there are many new comers who will need direction
and help to get started. Please encourage new-comers by being tolerant
of all questions, even if not well-researched, or well-phrased. These
qualities cannot be expected of someone lacking the necessary
coordination in a given field, and without our intial help, we will
only delay these new-comers' progress in getting the necessary skills
to become productive memebers of this group. If you don't feel like
answering a post because it is not well researched, or well
constructed, please ignore the post."

[Larry Linson]

I am of the opinion that your statement would be an unnecessary addition to
the FAQ. The sentiments you express are exactly those of the most helpful
posters in the newsgroup. If you want to see a newsgroup where they are not,
try any of the USENET C or C-variations newsgroups.

I rarely see helpful participants here be anything but polite in requesting
clarification so they can help. I often see those asking for help get very
antagonistic when they are asked to clarify -- apparently thinking that
"something went wrong somewhere, fix it for me, d**n you" ought to be enough
detail; if a few normally-helpful participants take exception to such a
response, I can understand why. It is not a matter of posts that aren't well
researched, or aren't well constructed, it is a matter of posts that just
don't contain enough information to specify what the problem is in
sufficient detail so we can help.

I also see nothing wrong with referring posters to the FAQ which encourages
research, or directing them to Google when a subject has already been
discussed many times and the answers haven't changed. My assumption in such
cases is that the person posting the question is not aware of the sources of
information suggested or that they could have Googled on particular keywords
and found previous discussions.

Except for the fact that it is quite condescending to those who invest lots
of time and effort in keeping the newsgroup going, and already do everything
that is asked, there's nothing wrong with the post. Except perhaps the
futile hope that every person who answers a question here will read it, take
it to heart, and be bound by it. In any sufficiently large group of people,
there will be some who are not easy to get along with.

Larry Linson
<sa****@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

It would be great if we could all suggest variations of this caluse
that we feel is reasonable to be included in the newsgroup FAQ.
Hopefully we can come up with a version that we all, including the
silent majority, feel leads to improving out collective experiences in
this newsgroup.

Thanks for your participation.

"to existing members of the group: please understand that for every
expert in a field, there are many new comers who will need direction
and help to get started. Please encourage new-comers by being tolerant
of all questions, even if not well-researched, or well-phrased. These
qualities cannot be expected of someone lacking the necessary
coordination in a given field, and without our intial help, we will
only delay these new-comers' progress in getting the necessary skills
to become productive memebers of this group. If you don't feel like
answering a post because it is not well researched, or well
constructed, please ignore the post."

[mst]

On 8 Dec 2005 15:19:11 -0800 "sa****@gmail.com" <sa****@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be great if we could all suggest variations of this caluse
that we feel is reasonable to be included in the newsgroup FAQ.
Hopefully we can come up with a version that we all, including the
silent majority, feel leads to improving out collective experiences in
this newsgroup.

Thanks for your participation.

"to existing members of the group: please understand that for every
expert in a field, there are many new comers

You have no concept of what a FAQ is for. It's not to moralize the
contributors in a NG - it's a document which consists of a number
of "Frequently Asked Questions" and their respective answers.

It's designed that way because the same ol' questions keep getting
asked over and over and over again.

--
remove MYSHOES to email

[sasan3]

Dear Mr. MST...

I think you are addicted to Jeopardy!!!!

I'll phrase my comment as a question if that is how the majority wish
to see it!!! Let me know!

[Terry Kreft]

I have seen no consensus in the responses to your various postings which
convinces me that any such amendment is either required or wanted.

Trying to continue to bulldoze this issue through in the face of the
opposition you have received is arrogant in the extreme.

Get the idea that when people disagree with you and especially when they go
to the extreme of plonking you that this is not an endorsement of your
opinions.

Pretending to represent a mythical silent majority is not a reasonable
argument to make in a newsgroup, in general if people can read in here they
can respond in here, if they don't then they either don't care or they feel
that their viewpoint is being put already by others.

There is no apparentt groundswell of support for your position, go away and
consider why you appear to be in the minority and especially consider why
despite appearing to be in the minority you continue to try to force your
views on the rest of the people in this group.
--
Terry Kreft

<sa****@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

<Snipped irrelevant drivel>

[sasan3]

Since I am not hearing from anyone, I assume my phrase is appropriate
as is. I suggest if we don't hear from anyone by Monday, we move
forward with including this phrase in the group charter.

:)

[Jeff Smith]

<sa****@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Since I am not hearing from anyone, I assume my phrase is appropriate
as is. I suggest if we don't hear from anyone by Monday, we move
forward with including this phrase in the group charter.

:)

You mention "The Group Charter". You posted to 3 different newsgroups here,
which group are you talking about? Did you read my reply to one of your
messages in "Dialogue with newsgroup Megalomaniacs (change of Subject...)"?
Each group has their own charter. CDMA, which I'm posting from, has their
charter posted at http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm , have you read
that one?

Also read the reply to my post made by Spike1.

You are you going to approach to include the phrase into the group charter?
Jeff

[Colin B.]

In comp.mail.sendmail sa****@gmail.com <sa****@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be great if we could all suggest variations of this caluse
that we feel is reasonable to be included in the newsgroup FAQ.
Hopefully we can come up with a version that we all, including the
silent majority, feel leads to improving out collective experiences in
this newsgroup.

So how are you answering a FAQ with this ever-so-polite meandering?

Speaking as a member of the previously silent majority, I wish you'd go away
and leave us in peace to discuss technical issues.

[mst]

On 9 Dec 2005 15:55:46 -0800 "sa****@gmail.com" <sa****@gmail.com> wrote:

Since I am not hearing from anyone

Because you're a kook.

--
remove MYSHOES to email

[Malcolm Dew-Jones]

Colin B. (cb****@somewhereelse.nucleus.com) wrote:
: In comp.mail.sendmail sa****@gmail.com <sa****@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: > It would be great if we could all suggest variations of this caluse
: > that we feel is reasonable to be included in the newsgroup FAQ.
: > Hopefully we can come up with a version that we all, including the
: > silent majority, feel leads to improving out collective experiences in
: > this newsgroup.

: So how are you answering a FAQ with this ever-so-polite meandering?

: Speaking as a member of the previously silent majority, I wish you'd go away
: and leave us in peace to discuss technical issues.
hear hear !

[Bri]

sa****@gmail.com wrote:

Since I am not hearing from anyone, I assume my phrase is appropriate
as is. I suggest if we don't hear from anyone by Monday, we move
forward with including this phrase in the group charter.

:)

Don't you get it? Not one responder has agreed with you! You act like a
bully and then get hostile when someone takes you to task. I haven't
responded before now because, as Terry so elegantly put it 'they feel
that their viewpoint is being put already by others'.

I don't know any thing about the other groups you have cross posted to,
but CDMA does have a FAQ that covers the topic you are claiming is not
covered. Go to http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm and READ IT.
All of it! Particularly the sections; 'Asking questions the right way'
and 'Answering questions the right way'. So, please follow your own
advice and READ the FAQ before you state that it is missing something.
Then if you have something meaningful to submit, do it POLITELY. If you
hadn't been so belligerent in your original post you would not have been
reciprocated in the hostility.

Now, apologize to CDMA for your accusations and try to behave like you
have shouted at everyone else to behave.

--
Bri
member of the no longer silent majority

[Rick Moen]

Original poster's cross-post snipped in follow-ups.

In comp.os.linux.setup sa****@gmail.com <sa****@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be great if we could all suggest variations of this caluse
that we feel is reasonable to be included in the newsgroup FAQ.
I note in passing the irony of your speaking of _the_ newsgroup while
crossposting across three of them.
Hopefully we can come up with a version that we all, including the
silent majority, feel leads to improving out collective experiences in
this newsgroup.

Thanks for your participation.

"to existing members of the group: please understand that for every
expert in a field, there are many new comers who will need direction
and help to get started. Please encourage new-comers by being tolerant
of all questions, even if not well-researched, or well-phrased. These
qualities cannot be expected of someone lacking the necessary
coordination in a given field, and without our intial help, we will
only delay these new-comers' progress in getting the necessary skills
to become productive memebers of this group. If you don't feel like
answering a post because it is not well researched, or well
constructed, please ignore the post."

^^^^^^

There is no excuse for lack of tact, let alone being a jerk -- but the
specific advice articulated above in the concluding sentence, though
frequently stated, is always bad.

Long experience suggests, often, the very most valuable help you can
give a newcomer is feedback as to how to better formulate a question
that seems doomed to failure or to generation of wild goose chases, and
conversely that the most cruel and harmful treatment you can give is to
"ignore the post".

Those who give even the most tactful feedback, more often than not, end
up getting vilified -- though they might be giving the user the best
possible and most efficient help -- while those who blow off the querent
walk off scot-free. Human perversity and a high percentage of
passsive-aggressive personalities among computerists seem to guarantee
this unfortunate social effect. However, our FAQs don't need to endorse
and encourage it.

--
Cheers, Now, it's time to hack the real world, and let other
Rick Moen people write Web sites about it.
ri**@linuxmafia.com -- Donald B. Marti