C bit twidders ... I'm in need of a dose of clever.

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Most of the knowledgeable people in this newsgroup know who
user923005 is. They know that it would be silly to killfile or
ignore him. They know that, on the rare occasions that he asks for
help, it's likely to be for extremely interesting reasons. (And yes,
they also know that he ought to know better than to post a
contextless reply.)

I can certainly make a guess, but I don't see any reason to give him a
pass from standard usenet etiquette. What if he decided next that
top-posting was the cat's meow?

I try to plonk consistently. If continues to post that way, especially
if he's obnoxious about it, then he'll certainly gain a deserved spot
in the old killfile.




Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:




I can certainly make a guess, but I don't see any reason to give him a
pass from standard usenet etiquette.

Neither do I. I suspect that he's just having a bad hair day.

What if he decided next that top-posting was the cat's meow?

The amount of slack I give people tends to depend on their S/N ratio (signal
to noise, sense to nonsense, skill to nuisance, whatever fits). This tiny
increase in N from user923005 doesn't significantly reduce his S/N ratio,
but obviously top-posting would increase N still further, and eventually
there would come a point... but I don't think that point is now. YMMV, of
course.

 

[Lane Straatman]

Flash Gordon said:


Most of the knowledgeable people in this newsgroup know who user923005 is.
They know that it would be silly to killfile or ignore him. They know
that,
on the rare occasions that he asks for help, it's likely to be for
extremely interesting reasons. (And yes, they also know that he ought to
know better than to post a contextless reply.)

Before he gets a disintegration ray, would he comment on how he came up with
the theoretical worst case performance in Figs. 13.7 and 13.8 without
handpicking "bad" initial sets? LS

 

[Default User]

Default User said:


Neither do I. I suspect that he's just having a bad hair day.


The amount of slack I give people tends to depend on their S/N ratio
(signal to noise, sense to nonsense, skill to nuisance, whatever
fits). This tiny increase in N from user923005 doesn't significantly
reduce his S/N ratio, but obviously top-posting would increase N
still further, and eventually there would come a point... but I don't
think that point is now. YMMV, of course.

I just can't agree with that sort of evaluation. I try to be as
consistent as I can, as I think "rules" such as they are in an
unmoderated group should apply as equally as possible. Allowing the
"regulars" to flout the rules that we hammer newbies about sends
exactly the wrong message, and gives fuel to the trolls who maintain
that that's the norm here.

The fact that someone has made useful contributions historically
doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. Some, I guess, maybe as you say,
let one bad day slide. However, if it's appearing to be a continuing
policy, then I'm not going to calculate some S/N ratio.



Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

I just can't agree with that sort of evaluation. I try to be as
consistent as I can, as I think "rules" such as they are in an
unmoderated group should apply as equally as possible.

So do I. I cut *everybody* slack in proportion to their S/N ratio.

Allowing the
"regulars" to flout the rules that we hammer newbies about sends
exactly the wrong message,

You're not *allowing* him to do anything. He can do what he likes, without
regard to your opinion or mine or anyone else's. The only control you have
is over *your* behaviour - your reaction to what he posts.

and gives fuel to the trolls who maintain
that that's the norm here.

Trolls don't need fuel. They just make stuff up.

The fact that someone has made useful contributions historically
doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. Some, I guess, maybe as you say,
let one bad day slide. However, if it's appearing to be a continuing
policy, then I'm not going to calculate some S/N ratio.

Well, neither am I. If someone posts a great many superb articles a day and
top-posts one or two from time to time, and forgets to quote context in
another handful, is it truly sensible to reprimand them for that? On the
other hand, if someone posts a handful of rather mediocre articles a day,
and top-posts in most of them, and fails to quote context in nearly all of
them, is it truly sensible *not* to?

At some point, you strike a balance. You don't need to dig out a pocket
calculator to know when someone "gets" it and when they don't.