Re: Interesting observation

<jes.t.er@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
Learn ot post properly.

Okay, this has gone on long enough I think. As you're attempting to
educate everyone on learning to post, let's enlighten people now. I
find it exasperating sometimes allowing people to pretend to be
knowledgeable enough to trounce others in the newsgroup. I ignore them
as politely as I can when they ramble ignorantly at Me, but I don't
like to watch it being done to others here. So let's have an education
class...

The relevant RFC is 1855 - 'Netiquette Guidelines' - which is a basic
style guide for email, talk and usenet style services - the relevant
sections being the one-to-many posting. BTW, an RFC is a submission to
the IETF and is Not an internet standard, but rather a request for one
that has not been accepted. It is a posted opinion until the IETF
dictates otherwise and should be treated as such. But let's take a look
at what they have to say about 'proper posting'.


[From RFC 1855]

"Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander
off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to
point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than
any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner."


It seems the RFC does have something to say about posting 'learn to
post' postings... And wandering off-topic to complain about posting
styles appears to be covered as well.


[From RFC 1855]

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response."


Nope, no mention of the much vaunted greater than '>' mechanism the
'noobs' don't get right for you. In short, just explaining what you're
replying to is not a violation of the RFC - though it is generally
accepted practice to use a greater than as a delimiter for quoted
lines. Per RFC though, it is perfectly acceptable to make
note/summarize a previous quote without inlining their original
statement. So please stop miseducating people on this point. You should
learn the rules before attempting to enforce them.


[From RFC 1855]

"If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
issues rather than the personalities involved."

Yes, that's right, insulting people as opposed to giving an intelligent
response is actually in the RFC as a no-no if you don't want to be a
'noob' and learn to post.

For more relevant guides, you Should be referring to the FAQs. While
they don't enforce the draconic quoting rules your insulting people
over, here's a couple salient tidbits to mull over between pretentious
posts.


[From usenet primer FAQ]

"Please remember that people all over the world are reading your words.
Do not attack people if you cannot persuade them with your
presentation of the facts. Screaming, cursing, and abusing others only
serves to make people think less of you and less willing to help you
when you need it."

[From usenet primer FAQ]

"Minimize your spelling errors and make sure that the article is easy
to read and understand. Writing is an art and to do it well requires
practice."


[From usenet writing style FAQ]

"Make an effort to spell words correctly....Just before you post your
article, re-read it."


[From usenet what-is FAQ]

"One social skill that must be learned, is that other people have
points of view that are not only different, but *threatening*, to your
own... Not everybody in the world is a bosom buddy, but you can still
have a meaningful conversation with them. The person who cannot do this
lacks in social skills."


Now, I'm not pointing out the spelling errors to chew you out. Rather
it is to make a point. You regularly fall outside the posting standards
per the FAQs as well as the RFCs. And these aren't errors pertaining to
not knowing how to spell. You hit keys in the wrong order and just
don't bother to proof. That's laziness, a disregard for quality and a
violation of the rules you keep referring to.

Trying to use supposed posting standards abuses as a substitute for an
intelligent counter argument to try and undermine the poster's
credibility is 1) fallacious, 2) really does not fool anyone and 3) is
itself a violation of both the USENET RFCs and FAQs. So please stop
abusing the forum and posting off-subject with this. A genuine, polite
reminder to include a quote for context is more than sufficient if you
are genuinely lost in a string.

I think that's enough. I'd really like to read discussions on
warcraft now.

Shay

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: imminent death of Usenet predicted
    ... Just wanted to warn anyone who's still listening here that this ... provide access to Usenet newsgroups, ... both reading and posting. ... like a practical alternative for posting the FAQ. ...
    (rec.sport.skating.ice.figure)
  • Re: http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/
    ... Before posting to clj, you should thoroughly read this document. ... Average reading speed (Native English speakers ... start posting to the group have actually read the FAQ prior to posting. ... There is an obvious catch 22 in expecting people who are new to Usenet ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: RSS Faq and Usenet "Netiquette".
    ... > RSS Faq and Usenet "Netiquette". ... > Usenet ``Netiquette'' (Zen and the Art of the Internet, ... > the reader. ... > Posting Personal Messages ...
    (rec.sport.soccer)
  • imminent death of Usenet predicted
    ... Just wanted to warn anyone who's still listening here that this ... provide access to Usenet newsgroups, ... both reading and posting. ... like a practical alternative for posting the FAQ. ...
    (rec.sport.skating.ice.figure)
  • Re: 2002 Ford Taurus Transaxle
    ... All I know is that when I first got into usenet, ... I have no idea what RFC is nor do I care about Emily Postnews (whatever the ... Some prefer posting replies before the quoted question. ...
    (rec.autos.tech)