On 08/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 08/11/2007, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Brian Butterworth wrote: > > > Yes, I am sure you do. That's your opinion. I'm sure I probably > > don't > > > agree with it as I'm sure that I regard etiquette as something for Mrs > > > Beeton and the 1950s. > > Uh huh. And yet you hold an attachment to a 12 year old RFC codifying > > behaviour > > in a time of 9600b modems? > > > I can't think of a better definition of "netiquette". The rest is quite > literally semanics. >
No it's not. > Also, I don't hold "good manners" as being anything other than a > > > particular social affectation. But that's just my opinion. > > Let me put this in terms you *may* understand... > > > > Good manners and polite behaviour (etiquette) are the CRC of effective > > communication. > > > "Good manners" are something found in PG Wodehouse - I am sure he would > have had a good line about a cyclic redundnacy check! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners I see no mention of Woodhouse, obviously because I can present a link showing this, it must be true. In fact I think you'll find they are the difference between an unreliable > > UDP > > storm and a reliable TCP stream. > > > That's a bit anthropomprphic! > Your point is? I suggest you seriously think about that point. Of course you can critique > > it > > but I think there's something in it. > > > What ON EARTH does this have to do with editing out other people comments > from an email? > > > > I've been writing about netiquette since the early 1990s, and the RFC is > > > the codified version of it. It's a published and widely distributed > > set > > > of rules. > > It's a shame you have yet to grasp the difference between knowledge and > > enlightenment. > > > Right, so it's enlightened to remove text that my mail programme doesn't > even show me because other people use Outlook and find scrolling down > troublesome? Wow. > Yes. > Whilst it seems that no-one actually agrees with it in it's entirely, it > > > is at least a published and relevant definition. > > So is the Koran. So? > > > I can't recall seeing the definition of 'netiquette' in that old book. > Perhaps I missed it? > That was obviously not his point. > The usual retort to this kind of argument is to provide another > > > reference link that trumps my definition... if no-one has one, can we > > > > > let this discussion rest? > > There are times when being accused of being a geek is a compliment. This > > isn't > > one of them. > > > I see no link! > Because links are the one true source of knowledge; right? Besides, I've given you one now. David > > > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial > > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > > > -- > > Brian Butterworth > www.ukfree.tv This has been a demonstration of bad manners and appalling netiquette brought to you by the How To Waste Your Time in teh internts company Vijay.
