Note to fellow newsgroup posters

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

Thats fine, but you do realise that by replying to Kenny, you've
forced me, and anyone else who killfiled him, to see his post, and
that doesn't damn well please /me.


Bear in mind that responding rudely to polite requests from the
regulars and especially the gurus who post here is NOT a good way to
recieve help when you want it, and /is/ a good way to get killfiled
yourself.

John wasn't actually rude. He went to some trouble to say "with all due
respect", but he also made his position clear - i.e. it's for him, not you
or Keith or me, to decide whether he considers Kenny McCormack's articles
to be worth replying to.

Please bear in mind that inaccurate responses such as yours *will* draw
corrections, Mark. And you can't killfile me for saying so, because you
already killfiled me the /last/ time you didn't understand what I was
saying, so you aren't actually reading this, are you?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

John Smith said:

Do you think it is reasonable, in an open forum, to expect others
to avoid replying to anyone whom you have, for one reason or
another, chosen to killfile?

If that *is* reasonable, then it's reasonable to expect people to avoid
replying to me, since TTBOMKAB I have been killfiled by Mark McIntyre and
Richard Bos - both, in my obviously biased opinion, through a failure to
understand my intent (which, to be fair to them, presumably means I failed
to communicate my intent properly).

Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Keith Thompson]

John Smith said: [...]

Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

John Smith said: [...]

Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Apparently not. It is easy to misconstrue a request as an instruction,
especially in English, and your original request could easily be
misconstrued in that manner.

Personally, I think you're right - i.e. it's better not to feed the troll -
but I also get rather annoyed by articles whose authors tell me, or *seem*
to be telling me, to whom I may or may not reply. To each his own killfile.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Nick Keighley]

CBFalconer said:

It is a great shame that even a thread specifically begun in a praiseworthy
spirit of reconciliation has been turned to discord and division. Are we
really so bad at getting along with each other as the latter posts in this
thread seem to indicate?

Usenet works best when people try to see the best in each other. This is
rendered the more difficult by cynicism and, yes, deliberate trolling, but
it is still not impossible. We get the Usenet we deserve. If we'd like to
see more harmony, more co-operation, and more friendship in this group, it
has to start with each one of us determining to make that possible by being
more harmonious, co-operative, and friendly in our own articles.

so which regular forged *this* post?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

John Smith said: [...]

Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

1) I believe your phrasing was: Please do not ... (ending w/a period)
Since there is no question mark, this is not an "ask"; it is a "tell".
2) Statements that begin with "Please" are, particularly in this ng,
taken as instructions. In general, the "Please" is sugar coating for
something that the OP does not want to hear.
3) You have a well-established role as netcop in this ng, moreso than
any of the other regulars.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

so which regular forged *this* post?

I reckon it was that chap Richard Heatheild. Mr Heathfeild, stop forging
posts by Richard Heathfield ;-)

 

[Random832]

John Smith said: [...]
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

1) I believe your phrasing was: Please do not ... (ending w/a period)
Since there is no question mark, this is not an "ask"; it is a "tell".
2) Statements that begin with "Please" are, particularly in this ng,
taken as instructions. In general, the "Please" is sugar coating for
something that the OP does not want to hear.
3) You have a well-established role as netcop in this ng, moreso than
any of the other regulars.

For as much as he's normally a troll, Kenny is correct in this instance.

If you don't want to see replies to trolls, get a newsreader that can
filter these out. It is not anyone else's responsibility to not quote
someone whose text you do not wish to read.

 

[Al Balmer]

Keith Thompson said:

John Smith said: [...]
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Apparently not. It is easy to misconstrue a request as an instruction,
especially in English, and your original request could easily be
misconstrued in that manner.

If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought

 

[Random832]

[added alt.usage.english, followups not set]

Keith Thompson said:

John Smith said:
[...]
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Apparently not. It is easy to misconstrue a request as an instruction,
especially in English, and your original request could easily be
misconstrued in that manner.

If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought

"Please don't..." is an instruction; there's no two ways about it.

 

[goose]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

arguments, or of who was in the wrong, I carried myself in a childish
manner.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about it too much; I've already
embarrassed myself countless times on usenet by being
in the wrong *and defending my position ferociously*

It is very easy to get ones ego tied up in ones argument
so that one cannot accept a correction with losing face,
hence long flamewars with each side defending their position
as best they can.

My real name is not Frederick Gotham, and I am not brave enough to post
using my real name. The reason for this is that I am ashamed/embarassed of
my childish behaviour, a thing which I am trying to work on. One day, when
I am the adult I want to be, I will post under my real name.

I wouldn't worry about this one either; I don't post under my
real name either but I assume that, by reading past posts over various
newsgroups, anyone can easily figure out my name, age, profession,
contact details and innermost fantasies.

(Okay, maybe not that last one .


Don't worry overall; the regs here are usually quite
nice okes. They probably respect you much more when
you are able to apologise.

In your dealings, whether on usenet or otherwise,
remember that there is no shame in humility.

goose,

 

[goose]

Well said, sir!

I think that is the first piece of actual humanity I've ever seen you
display in this newsgroup. Again, well done.

Yup; stay on for later when we all sit round a fire
and sing "kum-by-yah"

goose,

 

[Richard Harter]

John Smith said: [...]

Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

For as much as he's normally a troll, Kenny is correct in this instance.

If you don't want to see replies to trolls, get a newsreader that can
filter these out. It is not anyone else's responsibility to not quote
someone whose text you do not wish to read.

You must realize, though, that had more people taken Keith's advice in
this thread, it wouldn't exist, and we could get back to discussing C.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

If "please don't ..." sounds like an instruction to you, American
English must be further from the mother tongue than I thought

To be fair, it *is* an "instruction", but not a "command". (*)
And I think most of us understand that distinction, but less capable
people might not.

(*) In my terminology, an "instruction" is a statement that you should
do X (with an implicit assumption that obviously we all agree that X is
proper behavior - and that is that implicit assumption that Mr. Random
and others have rejected), but w/o a "stick" (in the traditional
"carrot-and-stick" metaphor).

A "command" is in instruction with a "stick". I.e., do this or dire
things will happen to you. KT often comes off as if he has a stick and
isn't afraid to use it (as noted above, obviously most of "us" know
better, but not everybody).

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You must realize, though, that had more people taken Keith's advice in
this thread, it wouldn't exist, and we could get back to discussing C.

(AFAIK) Nobody's holding a gun to your head making you post to this
thread.

 

[Random832]

To be fair, it *is* an "instruction", but not a "command". (*)
And I think most of us understand that distinction,

Well, except for the fact that you just made it up (I don't deny that
the distinction itself, which I snipped, exists, but you're haphazardly
assigning what words mean what distinctions when they're mostly
synonyms. if this is an instruction and that's a command, then what's an
order?)

but less capable people might not.

Regardless of what it is or is not, tacking on "please" doesn't change
anything about it. Can we all agree on that, at least? (that last
sentence, by the way, was a 'request'.)

 

[Al Balmer]

Regardless of what it is or is not, tacking on "please" doesn't change
anything about it. Can we all agree on that, at least?

Nope. The word means something to me.

 

[Keith Thompson]

John Smith said: [...]
Usenet is community property. Telling me whom I may and may not
reply to is not "constructive advice."

Hear, hear.

And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."

Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive. I do not have, and I have never claimed, any kind of
authority in this newsgroup. I offer my opinions -- and for the
record, everything I post here (other than quotations of what others
have written) is my opinion. If people really would prefer that I
phrase it differently, I'll consider it. But if "Please don't feed
the trolls" is seen as offensive, I don't see how sugar-coating it
would help; *somebody* is going to take offense no matter what I say.

I do believe that reminding people not to respond to trolls is a good
idea. Kenny McCormack, in my opinion, makes no positive contribution
to this newsgroup; rather, his goal seems to be to deliberately
disrupt it. I'm just trying not to let him do that. In effect, I'm
trying to organize a boycott (a voluntary one, of course).

If I'm missing something here, please help me understand it. I've
said myself that if somebody misunderstands what I've written, it's my
responsibility to write more clearly. But in this case, after reading
all the discussion, "Please don't feed the trolls" is exactly what I
wanted to say.

 

[Ian Collins]

Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive.

Keith, I'm sure you've been around here long enough to know this group
is populated with professional offence takers.