R
Richard Heathfield
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but
also of posting style, many of which are shared in common with other
technical groups. These conventions are there for excellent reasons, which
I won't go into here. And indeed it is sometimes necessary to draw people's
attention to those conventions.
Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a little
tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*, of complaints
about posting style.
Yes, the conventions are there for good reasons.
Yes, some people are too clueless - or perhaps too focused on the task they
are trying to achieve with clc's help - to work out the conventions for
themselves.
Yes, it does make sense to draw their attention to those conventions.
In the case of topicality, we're stuck there. Someone has to point it out.
And it is in the nature of Usenet that sometimes an off-topic subject will
be flagged by numerous people. C'est la vie, and we live with it.
But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?
Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?
There's a world of difference between saying "please don't top-post" and
saying "please don't top-post. Okay, your problem is that you're not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."
People will do what they do, I guess, but I hope at least some of you will
stop and think about this. If we have nothing substantive to say in reply
to an article, would it not be better to say nothing, and leave the style
complaints to those who /do/ have a relevant contribution to make to the
discussion?
Yeah, I know - if people aren't told, they won't know. But I'm not
suggesting we let it go by the board. I'm just saying that we could
significantly reduce the noise in here by adopting this guideline.
For my own part, I have tried to follow this rule for some considerable time
now, and I think that on the whole I've succeeded. And no, I'm not offering
flouters a licence to be stupid; I am much less likely to answer a question
if the person asking the question is in the habit of ignoring conventions
that exist for excellent reasons, because I'd rather expend my energy on
those who are bright enough to recognise the value of those conventions,
and who can respond positively to the group dynamic. Isn't that a
reasonable model to work with?
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?
Thanks for listening.
</soapbox>
also of posting style, many of which are shared in common with other
technical groups. These conventions are there for excellent reasons, which
I won't go into here. And indeed it is sometimes necessary to draw people's
attention to those conventions.
Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a little
tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*, of complaints
about posting style.
Yes, the conventions are there for good reasons.
Yes, some people are too clueless - or perhaps too focused on the task they
are trying to achieve with clc's help - to work out the conventions for
themselves.
Yes, it does make sense to draw their attention to those conventions.
In the case of topicality, we're stuck there. Someone has to point it out.
And it is in the nature of Usenet that sometimes an off-topic subject will
be flagged by numerous people. C'est la vie, and we live with it.
But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?
Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?
There's a world of difference between saying "please don't top-post" and
saying "please don't top-post. Okay, your problem is that you're not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."
People will do what they do, I guess, but I hope at least some of you will
stop and think about this. If we have nothing substantive to say in reply
to an article, would it not be better to say nothing, and leave the style
complaints to those who /do/ have a relevant contribution to make to the
discussion?
Yeah, I know - if people aren't told, they won't know. But I'm not
suggesting we let it go by the board. I'm just saying that we could
significantly reduce the noise in here by adopting this guideline.
For my own part, I have tried to follow this rule for some considerable time
now, and I think that on the whole I've succeeded. And no, I'm not offering
flouters a licence to be stupid; I am much less likely to answer a question
if the person asking the question is in the habit of ignoring conventions
that exist for excellent reasons, because I'd rather expend my energy on
those who are bright enough to recognise the value of those conventions,
and who can respond positively to the group dynamic. Isn't that a
reasonable model to work with?
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?
Thanks for listening.
</soapbox>