>I can see the moderators are patient and polite when reminding bottom >posting. IMO your analogy is inappropriate.
Well, I don't really care about what any moderators might do on the list, but those who *insist* on top-posting, sending html email with garish colorschemes or blinding backgrounds, anything annoying or even *offensive* to some, should be prepared to have their posts be ignored and deleted unread by those of us who find such rude behavior offensive. And yes, it's *rude* to take the "Screw you, I don't care what *your* guidelines/conventions happen to be, I'll do what *I* damned well please!". Well, I don't reward that kind of bad behavior by replying any more than if someone were to post, "Hey retards, how do you delete lines from 3 to 10 in one shot?". Hey, if they want to take that chance, fine by me... I'm not going to nag them about it, I'm not going to argue the merits of bottom-posting or plaintext-only email with them, I'll simply ignore them. And there's a big clue right there. If someone who insists on top-posting, or sending garish html email, etc., were to not get a single reply to his query, later ask why not, *then* someone would clue in the person as to why not, hey, he'll *learn*. But as long as people give the rude posters an exhaustive answer, and only a parenthetical "We try to not top-post here." or "Ow, that blinding background hurt my eyes.", there's zero incentive to *not* correct that behavior. What does he care, now that he's *gotten* his answer? You don't give a dog his treat first and then ask him to sit up, roll over, bark, whatever. No, you deny the treat *until* he does what you ask of him. Is that rather condescending, treating a rude poster as a dog? Maybe, but I *guarantee* you that approach will eventually work. 'Nuff said. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
