On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 22:33 -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
--snip--
> you've noticed, I inline post, and rarely top post. I know that is how it is
> done, but the will of the group is not always right. Where there is one,
You're absolutely right. The will of the group most definitely is NOT
always right. However, in a situation like d-u, if you want to
participate in the group and get help from the group, you either play by
the group's rules or not at all.
If you just want to come in and make a point, then that's fine. Just
don't expect people to help you if the point you're making is against
one of their pre-established practices. ('you' being a generic term, not
referring to anyone in particular here.)
--snip--
> My words have proven so important to you that you took the time out of your
> life to go back and look them up and re-use them. So, before I say anything
> else, thank you for using your actions to pay me a compliment and let me know
> that at some level, what I wrote had such an impact that you remembered them,
> and took the time to look them up and quote them directly.
Absolutely. I meant to imply nothing else. I most certainly did remember
your words as they were written in response to mine. And while they did
not agree with my point, they were written in response to my point. To
use your above example, you thought my words were important enough to
take the time to write words of your own to answer them. I stated my
opinion, and you stated yours, so all is as it should be.
--snip--
> I'm making a point. You can call it self serving or not. I'm making an
> observation about a group of people responding to a specific thread. When I
i.e. You're making a generalization. And generalizations have a way of
stepping many toes and opening few minds. Not an affront, just an
observation.
> originally used my words above, they were in reference to someone trashing
> all those involved in proprietary software. There is a big difference: I
> have been able to observe all the people upon which I am commenting. The
> person who originally commented on proprietary software was not able to
> observer anywhere near even 1% of that group and was creating a strongly
> negative stereotype based on observing, as I said, less than 1% of that
> group.
That was me. And the stereotype was very much intended to be both a
stereotype and negative. Users of proprietary software have just as much
right to use that software as I have to use free software. I would not
aim to deprive them of that right. However, in exercising that right,
they diminish and potentially undermine my ability to use free software,
so therefore I do not like them and will not pretend that I do. To
paraphrase a great quote, I may defend your right to say what you want,
but I sure as hell don't have to pretend to like it. :)
--snip--
> I'm trying to find where I ever said they were morally superior. I never said
> it, so I think it comes down to did I imply it or did you (or anyone else)
> infer it. Open mindedness is not necessarily superior to closed mindedness.
> In many cases it is, but that does not give me a moral high ground.
I very much inferred it, particularly from the bit that I quoted. The
fact that the paragraph was making a generalization very probably had a
good deal to do with how I took the sentence. (See above about
generalizations.)
--snip--
> Thank you, again. It's nice to know that at some level my words effected you
> so deeply you remembered them, and took the time to find them and re-use
> them.
Same as above. I may not agree with all you have to say, but you speak
your peace well so I tend to remember it.
--snip--
> You do go to quite extreme points. If that's your style, fine. I personally
> find it often doesn't work because you end up with a "not drawing the line"
> situation. For example, if I say one needs to be tolerant of other
> behaviors, and I'm referring to something as simple as top-posting, there's
> always gotta be someone who says, "So you mean if someone kills someone, we
> should tolerate it." The two situations are not comparable, and extending
> one into the other really has no basis.
I try not to go to that extreme. In my experience choosing an argument
so loosely related to the original in an attempt to bolster one's own
argument is a sure sign of a poorly thought out and defended position.
If a person gets to that point in a debate, they've already lost.
> So I guess I'm saying/asking (and not in a debate format, but out of
> curiosity), when you go for extreme points, doesn't that often hurt your
> point because you're taking it too far?
What I try to do is state extreme points bluntly and with humor. I
always express what my stance on a position is, but I try to show it in
an extreme enough manner to get a chuckle out of my audience. If you
take the time to chuckle at what I've said, you're less likely to
immediately become angry at it and disregard everything in the message.
See above point about taking an extreme point too far.
--snip--
> I think that is an important point (so important, I left all those paragraphs
> intact!). Notice that I am not arguing for top posting, but arguing to not
> ban it or ostracize those who use it. I've seen many people that top post
> and just add on to what was there before, so after about 5 replies, the
> entire thread is still in the most recent post. That may frustrate dial-up
> users, but it keeps the thread intact.
(See initial point about group rules.) I definitely agree that people
who choose to top-post should not be banned or ostracized. I do feel
that if a top-poster comes to d-u and is told nicely (as is usually the
case around here actually) to not top post, they should respect that and
not do it. If they don't respect the group's wishes in that regard then
they are not entitled to receiving support from the group either.
Coincidentally, one thing that I've noticed is that the majority of
top-posters (uh oh, generalization coming up) tend to be top-posters out
of ignorance, not preference. (Much like most Internet Explorer/Outlook
Express users are IE/OE users out of ignorance of better alternatives.)
In this context, I would very much argue that Microsoft is the greatest
peddler of ignorance the world has ever seen.
One of the major problems with this ignorance comes when considering the
fact that there are quite a few people in the world who can't handle
being told that they didn't do something right which leads to them
immediately getting defensive. These people are the ones who pose the
greatest problems. They top-post because they don't know any better (not
because they evaluated both alternatives and chose the one which works
better with the way they think), and then they get offended when someone
attempts to point out that their style of posting is not considered
appropriate in that particular setting. It is this attitude, in my
opinion, which tends to undermine top-posting as a general practice.
--snip--
> sometimes by bottom posting. That's why I've taken the stand I have. Many
> times a top-posting post can be better at keeping things in context and
> presenting needed info better than other formats. I've found that most of
> the time when I read someone's top-posting comments, it's clear what they are
> replying to, and if not, I can check below. It's like a book with footnotes.
> If a point isn't clear and footnoted, check on what it says. If it is clear
> and you don't need explanation, skip the footnotes.
I usually deal with emails (discussion group and otherwise) in 'bursts'.
I don't keep up with it on an hourly basis, but I get caught up with it
every couple of days or so. If a discussion doesn't start and end within
the time-frame of when I get caught up with mails, it becomes very
difficult for me to keep track of who's saying what with regards to what
without proper context.
--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part