Steve,
"Appropriate topics of discussion" and "definition and management of abuse"
are always valid topics of discussion on any list that does not have a
separate administrative sublist or process. I have no personal issue to
discuss with you. This is a public question. You took a public position on a
valid list topic that I disagree with.
NOTE: Positions cannot have arrogance, only people do. The arrogance of a
person, or lack thereof has nothing to do with the validity of an arguement.
Whether or not you think I am arrogant is not a valid topic of discussion on
this list. I don't happen to think I am arrogant but would be happy to
discuss that offline if you think it is important. For the list the key
question is "Do you disagree on the substance of my arguement?" I don't mind
you calling me arrogant as an aside while refuting my position but please
don't forget the important step of discussing the position. Otherwise you
are just name calling.
My position in summary: It is not important to be nice to newbies who waste
bandwidth with questions they could have resolved by checking the FAQ or
list archives. The proper response to such a post is a pointer to the
information source AND a clear statement that the request was abuse of the
list. Some people prefer to make that statement more politely than others. I
consider the tone to be an issue of style and to be acceptable eithor way.
It is the substance that counts. The reply should be helpful in both ways,
point to the proper information and education concerning list etiquette. I
think there is zero "requirement" to be nice to idiots^H^H^H^H^Hpeople who
waste our time. Giving the appropriate information is "nice" enough.
On the other hand slamming a newbie without giving any assistance should be
considered a flame and inappropriate on the list. Flaming should be done in
private.
This standard is in use on many lists and seems to work fine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Bostedor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 10:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Noise on the vnc-list : suggestion
>
>
> Again, we disagree based on the arrogance of that position.
> I think that, to
> follow your own advice, you should reply to me personally at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you wish to discuss this further so
> that you do not
> cause others "to sift through wasted bandwidth just because
> [you] want to
> contribute to and participate in real constructive
> discussion". This is a
> valid issue, but should be discussed in private because it
> does not pertain
> to VNC in any direct manner.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Bostedor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
