Re: Help with OE please?

Mike Easter <MikeE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > No,
>
> Yes.

No, it's no. See below.

> > you posted two articles *only two minutes* apart.
>
> First I posted answering his initial post how I would use Previous on my
> choice of sorting.
>
> Then I posted answering his 2nd post and I disagreed with his request
> for email response [in addition to news] and called it rude,

Yes, but, as I said, your second post was *only two minutes* after the
first.

> which is
> what y'all are disagreeing with. I accept the disagreements, but I
> still disagree with his request for mail too.

We are, or at least I am, disagreeing with the combination of "rude"
and the FAQ bit, considering that you were talking to a regular (, and
some more, see below).

> I wouldn't have made such a mail request as he did, but instead if I
> were going to access news with OE at his work where he can't access
> because Cox doesn't allow foreign access to their newsserver, then I
> would use an alternate newsserver, which he will have to do anyway. If
> he's going to be using OE there for news, he's going to have to find a
> newsserver, he isn't going to be able to have people email him responses
> to new posts.

I am sure he is well aware of that. But *now* he is looking if OE is
usable. No use looking for a newsserver if you can't use it, is it?

In short: He has his reasons and you have yours. Accept it, or ask for
clarification, or keep quiet, etc., but do not judge.

> Besides, he uses a munged addy without instructions for
> demungeing - altho' the mungeing is pretty obvious, so that issue is
> trivial.

So why mention it?

> >You can't
> > expect people to just cop an undeserved flame in one subthread, just
> > because you posted a (somewhat) helpful response in another
> > subthread, two minutes earlier.
>
> /Flame/ is me saying I found it rude to ask for the email? You folks
> didn't find it rude, perhaps because you know him.

Not, we didn't find it rude because it *wasn't* rude, because he
*explained* *his* reasons for asking (and said "please" and "Thanks").
Give us/him a break, how more un-rude can one be?

> So we disagree on
> that point. I wouldn't call it me flaming him.

"flame" is Usenet talk/shorthand. It was unjustified criticism. Is
that better?

> > FWIW, because you responded to two
> > different articles (the OP and XS11E's addendum to his OP), (for me)
> > both OE and tin showed the flame first and the helpful response
> > second.
>
> Then there's something wrong with the way your newsreader threads.

No, there isn't. His addendum was Date:-ed before your first post, so
his addendum was the first sub-thread and your first post was the second
sub-thread. Simple as that. I.e. one reads per sub-thread and does not
jump back and forth between sub-threads in Date:-order.

> Perhaps you should look into that and figure out how to get items
> threaded properly. Maybe you should sort some other way or something,
> especially since OE is a notoriously poor threader - as I previous
> explained at the beginning of this thread.

As I said, tin does the same thing. I don't think its author/
maintainer would appreciate it if we said that it is "a notoriously poor
threader".

> > So XS11E probably also saw your flame first.
>
> If that is so, then there's something wrong with his threader too.

No, see above.

> > So bottom line: XS11E got undeserved flak and he responded to it.
>
> I still disagree with the request for email. I understand, accept, that
> several people responding here don't find it rude. Maybe I should use
> some other term than 'rude' for my disagreement with the request. I
> understand that the request is different from a request to be emailed
> instead of coming back to the ng, but I still disagree with his making
> the request. I'm entitled to my opinion about that, as are you.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't criticise someone,
in whatever way, when there is no reason, as in this case.

> If saying a request for an email is rude is flaming, this must be a
> delicate group.

See above (i.e. "flame" == "unjustified criticism": "rude" *and* FAQ
'offer' *and* unjustified advice to use another newsserver, not to
mention your second paragraph).

May I suggest you try to learn from this episode, instead of trying to
convince all the other people in the thread that your flame wasn't one,
how they should run their systems, that their newsreaders are broken,
etc.?

I'm sure you mean well. You just made a bad call. Been there, done
that, got the T-shirt.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help with OE please?
    ... First I posted answering his initial post how I would use Previous on my ... Then I posted answering his 2nd post and I disagreed with his request ... for email response and called it rude, ... still disagree with his request for mail too. ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Drop Down menu is it possible in FP2000?
    ... (Sorry for reposting this request - but previous response ... was from a sad joker who decided to be very rude.) ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.client)
  • Re: Large file upload
    ... I would prefer no response to this. ... don't want to be rude. ... we still don't recommend uploading such ... >request length it can accept. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices.enhancements)
  • Re: Wind your neck in...
    ... lesson" in manners, because who's manners are we going to use as a ... Fine, disagree, now answer the question. ... If I decide that you are being rude by disagreeing ... There is no statute that says " you must be polite to a police officer" ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Under Suse, changing /etc/fstab doesnt work ;-(
    ... >>Some guy named Joe Blow crossposts to 5 unrelated newsgroups, ... It is *not* there to be used in a rude way that inconveniences ... >accede to their request or do you thumb your nose at it? ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
Loading