[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Literal postings, was Re: Wanted - Debian(preferred)/Linux handheld

On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 12:31:38 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:

> On 08/18/2018 11:42 AM, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 10:02:39 (+0200), Anders Andersson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > P.S. I wish my initial posts be taken literally. <chuckle>
> > > 
> > > I wish this for every question on the mailing list but sadly that
> > > rarely happens, leading to a lot of pointless traffic to wade through.
> > > On every question there's always the "helpful" people who just wants
> > > to share their 2 cents worth of opinion and derail the question in the
> > > process.
> > > 
> > > I guess that's partially because a lot of people don't know how to ask
> > > a question[,] so everyone assumes that it is not to be taken literally.
> > > 
> > > Maybe I'm not a hundred years old like you guys, but on the inside I'm
> > > just as grumpy, err, I mean "opinionated"!
> > 
> > . A lot of OPs provide very little background information. Sometimes
> > this may be because they don't know what *is* relevant, but often a
> > thread turns into an episode of "Twenty Questions" because of what
> > seems like a reluctance to reveal any facts about their system.
> > 
> > . Following this, when the OP apparently "disappears" after making
> > their first post, people are left little option but to make guesses
> > about what their problem might be caused by. One cannot but suspect
> > that many OPs are helped by these discussions (the bits where the
> > guess was correct), fix their system and then say nothing or,
> > occasionally, post "Thanks. Period." Whereupon one of the helpers
> > might ask them to be more helpful and reveal which solution fixed
> > which problem so that others might benefit.
> > 
> > . Some OPs provide facts which, when people start investigating, are
> > found to be incorrect, so the thread bifurcates into those accepting
> > the factoid and others disputing it.
> > 
> > . Some OPs post what they want to do without realising their
> > assumptions already made nor the implications of those assumptions
> > which might lead to undesirable consequences they hadn't foreseen.
> > 
> > . Many OPs are not writing in their native language, so it would
> > be unkind to only take their words literally.
> > 
> > All that said, "Careful what you wish for". A stilted overdefined
> > conversation will probably not be as helpful to people. In a
> > troubleshooting environment you want your thinking to be lateral:
> > only the code itself is literal.
> > 
> <chuckle> In a way I've been on the other side of this topic.
> I spent decades in what might be termed customer support, field service, or
> engineering support. My background with milli-volt low frequency signals got
> me a job in construction inspection where I ended up rejecting large
> stainless steel pipes (welds rusted) and grade beams (out of square).
> I admit I have an atypical world view and wish constraints others don't see
> as relevant. On another list I was asking questions about sources for some
> odd equipment. I explicitly said certain characteristics were explicitly
> unacceptable. I got replies telling me where I could square the unacceptable
> product. <groan ;>

A user on -user who takes on the task of answering a query or any mails
which follow up cannot dictate the course or form of the responses. It's
par for the course. Sometimes you win; sometimes you don't. But it's a
risk the user takes. He makes the choice to respond and, in doing so,
cannot direct the nature of the answer. The rough is taken with the
smooth. It's part of the fun.

The questioner who posts? Same rules apply. He does not have to respond
because his whims are not obeyed or quality control regulations are not
being followed. Take the rough with the smooth.

That keeps everyone happy and rubbing along.


Reply to: