[Klug-general] Mailing list etiquette, again

[George Prowse]

Shish wrote:
>> I think the idea of forcing some kind of etiquette on people in this 
>> list is absurd.
> 
> I think etiquette is *always* a good idea. In this particular case,
> mailing list message layout etiquette is there to help people
> communicate effectively. 

And you feel that people who dont post in a certain way undermine your 
ability to post?

If "yes" then you seem to have lost your "thick skin" you said you have.
If "no" then why start this argument?

If you don't want to communicate, why be a
> list member in the first place?

You seem to have made 2 + 2 = 5 there... That sentence has no bearing on 
any part of the this discussion so far.
> 
> Also, how was force suggested and / or applied?
> 
So what are the point of rules if no-one adheres to them?
> 
> On a meta-point: if you'd quoted a specific bit of my text to
> illustrate my use and / or suggestion of force, then followed it with
> your comment, then I would have no need to ask what you're talking
> about :P
> 
If I was posting to anything you said I would have quoted it.

> Another possibility is that you're reading the entire message, then
> writing the entire reply, without referring back to double check that
> what you're replying to is something that I've *actually* said. In this
> case, your thought process would be helped by taking specific quotes,
> and replying to them one at a time.
> 
A general point was made that some rules about etiquette were needed, my 
response was that if we use common sense then they aren't.

> See why I think "quote, reply, quote, reply" is a good idea yet? It
> helps both reader *and* writer :P
> 
*If* they are talking to you and you alone...
> 
>> This is supposed to be a community group
> 
> How can you have community if people are unable to understand what
> other people are saying?
> 
Well most of us well-rounded and clever enough to let a few mistakes 
pass and work out what a person is saying. Have you seen the original 
poster make these mistakes time and time again?

> In the case of the original message, I really, honestly did think that
> it was spam -- first thing I did after glancing at the overall layout
> and reading the first sentance was scroll down to the bottom, to see
> what the image attachment was trying to sell K-LUGgers. I was shocked
> to find that where normally randomly generated text is followed by an
> obfuscated image pushing some company's stock, in this case there was a
> bottom quote. Then I scrolled back up, and read the message from the
> top to the bottom (as is the natural order for English readers), at
> which point it still made no sense. Then after sitting and staring and
> thinking "WTF?", I scanned the other messages in the list to find where
> this branch had snapped off of another thread, and after re-reading
> those, I realised that the message was actually two messages at the
> same indentation level, with the second one coming first. Then I read
> the second message, then scrolled up to read the message which came
> after it but was written before it, and then I finally understood what
> the sentance meant.
> 
It too me about 10 seconds.

Let it go, sometimes things like this happen.

> I have no idea why someone thinks that spending 5 minutes doing the
> above is a good thing, and spending 5 seconds following etiquette in
> order to make their message instantly understandable is a bad thing :-/
> 
Why work it out? If you dont like how it is written - don't read it
> 
>> Post sensibly
> 
> You think the idea of forcing some kind of etiquette on people in this
> list is absurd, remember? :)
> 
1. Pick up dictionary
2. Look up "force"
3. Look up "etiquette"
4. Return, read quote again and repost
> 
>> ignore mistakes and errors
> 
> Personally, if I make a mistake, I wish to know about it. How else will
> I learn?
> 
Personally I think the way you have handled this is fucking rude!!!

How dare you shove a small mistake down someone's throat on a friendly 
list like this!

> Given that you think pointing out mistakes is a mistake, and you're
> pointing that out to me rather than ignoring it, that shows that you
> support my view and defeat your own :P
> 
I'm arguing these points so you dont make the same mistake again and we 
dont need some "rules and regulations" when we post

> <flame serverity=":P">
> Hint: before composing your reply, you may wish to read this:
> http://tinyurl.com/2v6hf5
> </flame>
> 
Childish... I'm surprised you didn't use the kid with Down Dyndrome

> <defeat type="self">
> In particular, you may wish to note example 1 from the link above, and
> combine it with the fact that this email has taken 2 hours to write >_<
> </defeat>
> 
> (Though I hope that people will listen to my guidelines for effective
> communication, and I'll save much more than 2 hours in the long run /o/)

Well done, we are all proud

George