[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: dns_cancel_pending_resolve() message

     On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:06:04 -0400 phobos@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:32:43AM -0500, bennett@xxxxxxxxxx wrote 4.8K bytes in 87 lines about:
>I can confidently state that arguing about mailing list etiquette
>is a futile pursuit.  As someone who lived through "The Day" when AOLers
>were given usenet access in 1994, I understand the breaking of

     I recall that, too, as well as the time before that when CompuServe
users first got limited SMTP access on the Internet.  I also remember the
barbarians-at-the-gates screams of protest, which, given the quality of a
lot of the writing in USENET up until that time, seemed to me a bit
inappropriate. ;-)

>etiquette.  However, arguing about etiquette shouldn't take priority
>over helping others on or-talk.

     But that is the point.  It shouldn't be argued about; it should
simply be followed.  I really do not understand the motivation for the
reactions I have been getting when I point out the problems.  The kind
of "etiquette" I've been referring to isn't Emily Post sort of etiquette,
but rather the practical methods to be followed in order to promote
clear communication, without which helping others and getting help from
others become unnecessarily difficult.
     "Etiquette" is probably a poorly chosen word for these things,
although consideration for others is still a motivation.  In any case,
someone else started the word's usage in this context and left us stuck
with it long before I ever used it for this stuff. :-)
>As someone who lives in the world of unicode by day, stating that
>everyone should use ascii seems archaic to me.  Using plaintext over
>html or rich text, great; we agree on this point.

     Again, UNICODE requires MIME or some other extension built on top
of plain ASCII.  It is neither generally necessary for mailing lists or
USENET, and it should not be used unless there is an established charter
or policy for the list or news group that clearly states (in plain,
ASCII text) that software supporting such extensions must be used for
full participation in the list or news group.
>Tor is used, supported, and maintained by an international group of
>volunteers.  They don't always converse in English, nor do a subset even
>know how to do so.  I know from working with Farsi speakers, their
>English is far superior to my Farsi.  I make horribly offensive mistakes
>when trying to converse in Farsi; the recipients merely correct or
>switch to English in order to converse.  Trying to make non-native
>English speakers understand fairly esoteric etiquette rules is
>difficult.  A little understanding about different customs is all that
>is needed.  I'm willing to forgive mistakes so long as the signal far
>exceeds the noise.  
     I agree with you on those points.  However, the *speaking* of
natural languages isn't really relevant here.  Communication in visible
(i.e., written, typewritten, printed, electronic display) form is what
we were discussing.  As fewer and fewer participants bother to communicate
clearly, or conversely, as more and more refuse to, that ratio will
     What good is a list if people openly refuse to communicate clearly on
it?  People who want to communicate clearly will change their methods
of posting when the problems with how they post are pointed out to them.
Often this is the case with newcomers to mailing list participation.
People who don't give a dam about clear communication probably shouldn't
waste the time and bandwidth of those who do by posting to the list.
     As I wrote before in other words, if the noise level becomes great
enough on this list (or any other, for that matter) that the value of
the list to me falls too low, I will unsubscribe.  Meanwhile, as long
as the list is adequately valuable to me, I would like to continue to
try to keep it that way.

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *