On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:09:48AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-03-22 21:52:52 +0000 Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> > wrote: > > >I don't want people to say "this might be suboptimal" instead of "this > >is crap", because then I won't be able to tell the difference between > >things that are crap and things that are suboptimal. I *want* to know > >when something is crap, because it needs priority attention. > > Actually, both statements are about as useless, on the level of "I > like this book because it is good". I want to know why something is > bad, because then we can fix it. Well, obviously. I'd expect that to follow. It's orthogonal, though. > >Everything else follows from there. People who can't call > >things by their real names are not useful. > > Some people disagree about what is the real name for a thing. However, > this isn't about that. Indeed, this is about asking people to deliberately call things by different names in order to follow some arbitrary notion of "politeness", which I reject on every level. > >[...] I get far > >too much mail from idiot users already. > > I think you are so abrasive that only an idiot user would send you > mail. They don't all have the rhino-hide that DDs are expected to > grow. I get plenty of mail from users that aren't idiots too, and most of them get useful responses. But I could *really* do without the idiots. I'd save about an hour a week if I could just get rid of the people who bounce my replies because they don't know how to configure an MTA; replying to them is a complete waste of my time. Being "abrasive" is generally an effective way at reducing their numbers. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature