Re: Q: Oracle vs Debian?
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 20:45, Kent West wrote:
> <KMSelf posted a standard blurb about not top-posting in response to a
> thread he was otherwise not involved in.>
>
> > For clarity and to support conversational discussion style, please use
> > bottom-posting format: your reply goes below the material cited.
> > Trim your quotes appropriately and ensure your attributions are
> > accurate.
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.html
> > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
> > http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Wayne Sitton wrote:
> >and as to you KMSelf, as far as I know this is an open list, and your
> >email to me on what you think should be proper email response was not
> >asked for by me. I gave an answer to a question that had nothing to do
> >with you...and as far as I know you are not a moderator of this list.
> >
> >So basically...butt out
>
> Since "this is an open list", and since Karsten's part of this
> community, and since these messages are archived for the community,
> Karsten has as much right as anyone to gently steer people in the "ways
> of the list". I hope I'm not being offensive by saying this; I don't
> mean to be.
Hello,
In being a member of any social group, there is a requirement for a standard
of behaviour conformity.
This is usually to ensure the end result of a commonly perceived productive
direction.
On the subscribe page for the Debian maillists, there is a reference to the
format required for this environment
There are a number of personalities on this list that have been here for some
considerable time, have put in a lot of work towards promoting the efficient
use of the Debian system, and have politely requested over the years that
other posters conform to the standard previously mentioned.
The standard is there, not just for the purposes of social acceptance, but
also for the efficient cataloguing of the archives. Archives which these
people have spent a lot of time and energy in creating.
When somebody arrives on the scene without fully realising the requirement
for the formality, by their non-adherence their action is seen as personally
abusive.
When seen in this light, a little terseness is quite understandable.
Myself?
I'd be looking for a gun.
Regards,
David.
Reply to: