mlimber wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
Nemok wrote:
Thanks Neo. I see you are the only one here that is not too busy to say
I am off topic to actually read my question and give me an answer if
possible.
<sigh> I see you are not the only one here not realizing that perpetuating
off-topic is simply not good for _everybody_. comp.lang.c++ is *not*
a chat room for every issue remotely related to C++.
To quote Judge Easterbrook: "If the rules are good, enforce them; if
the rules are bad, change them; there's little point in having good
rules but winking at noncompliance."
(http://www.legalaffairs.org/howappea...g_archive.html)
I am not sure what you're trying to say with this quote. Honestly.
To the OP and others:
If we could _enforce_ the rules, we'd not be having this conversation.
Neither I nor other regulars here are going to change the topicality of
this newsgroup (IOW, the "rules" are just fine). But the rules are just
that, rules. Guidelines. No mechanism here exists to enforce them,
comp.lang.c++ is "unmoderated". That's why we "police" this newsgroup
and not *filter* it (like most moderated NGs).
Now, following the rules (guidelines) is the responsibility of every
poster, not a chosen few who pick which posts make it and which are left
to decay in bit- (or byte-) buckets as in moderated newsgroups. I do
actually think that this is a much better situation. Nobody has their
brains shot out by a pepper pellet here, nobody's arms or noses are
broken by a hard-rubber baton.
I will not tire to repeat this spiel: if we don't do our "policing" (in
whatever form it happens to exist), this newsgroup will cease to function
as intended. As part of "policing", the rule is not to answer off-topic
questions _at_all_. Not by marking it [OT], not in any other way. If
an off-topic question is answered, the off-topic question poster usually
simply leaves (he got what he wanted) never to come back again. He wasn't
interested in C++ to begin with, anyway. And some other bloke might see
that OT is perpetuated and deduce that it is perfectly OK to ask it again.
Another sod answers that one, and so on.
If the poster who doesn't know where to post is simply nudged in the right
direction, it is by far better than supplying the answer alongside some
vague mention of off-topicality. If he leaves hungry, he's more likely to
find the _proper_ place to eat. He'll just have to. Basically this is
the same as "give the man a fish" vs "teach the man to fish" thing.
V
P.S. If that's what Judge Easterbrook meant, good. If it's not, I am not
going to cry, anyway.