Thread Hijacking Protocol

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

Brad Bourn
On Friday 11 August 2006 9:38 am, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> and your next statement is where your reasoning fails:
>
> > You regard my opinion as invalid, becuase it is different than yours.
>
> because this is *only* your *assumption*!

I'd go so far as to say this is my opinion, or belief, but the more I think
about it, I'd have to say that I didn't give the benifit of the doubt.  I
like to always give the benefit of the doubt, so my apologies for that.

More accurate would have been, "I feel like my opinion isn't considered,
because it is different then what is supposedly the standard practice"

> > Your opinion leaves no room for people who think for themselves, or
> > for any change whatsoever.
>
> more assumption, or *only* your opinion

definately my opinion, based on experience, mainly from you and Ken.....
and again, without the benefit of the doubt.

hehehe

So, apoligies, and "It feels like my opinion isn't considered, because it
doesnt follow what is supposedly the standard practice"
 
> > It is interesting that most of the policed discussions always end up,
> > when confronted with individual thinking and logic, back to "this is
> > the way the list has been, and is what is expected, therefore, do it
> > just because...".  
>
> and you have pulled this out of who-knows-where (rather than stating
> the real location) because it was not in the list of reasons presented.

LOL

Instead of searching for past posts to show this, Ken was nice enough to offer
up EXACLTY this example with his reply.  Thanks Ken.
 
> > I've always thought it odd that a list for technology that is "open"
> > could be so "closed".
>
> more opinion


Absolutely!  My whole email is/was opinion.


Being opinionated doesn't preclude one from being openminded, however, most
poeple assume that opinionated people aren't open minded.  I like to think of
them as experienced, with something to offer.  The mere facts that they are
willing to listen, and allow me to have my own opinion (agree to disagree),
and can discuss the topic without angst, defensiveness, or getting into a
power struggle, makes them open minded.


When a discussion about a topic is relegated to, "Well, just do it because it
is how it has been done in the past, and how we want it done now", it looses
the chance for growth / understanding.


B-)

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

Michael Wolf-6
In reply to this post by Philipp Thomas
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:43:39 +0200, Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * Orn E. Hansen ([hidden email]) [20060810 23:18]:
>
> > Top post is "ok" in cases, where you aren't answering to anything specific
>
> IMNSHO, top posting is *never* OK, like reading a book back to front is
> in most cases nonsense.

It's not ok very often, but never say never. :)

When somebody "me too!"s - and there are good reasons to do that,
sometimes - there's really no harm in the response being on top.  In
fact, I think it's better put it on top than to pedantically follow
the post-at-the-bottom rule without understanding why and when it's
worth following.

It's true that top posting can be pretty inconvenient to people who
use archaic mailers [0], but I'd argue that those archaic mailers are
pretty inconvenient anyway.

On the other hand, mails with lines of more than 80 characters (except
when they include literal output) have no excuse. :)

[0] The official definition of an archaic mailer, that I'm making up
as I write this, is one that doesn't thread mails.  

--
Je suis en train d'être dans un train.

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

Patrick Shanahan
In reply to this post by Brad Bourn
* Brad Bourn <[hidden email]> [08-11-06 12:44]:
> Absolutely!  My whole email is/was opinion.

  :^)

> Being opinionated doesn't preclude one from being openminded,
> however, most poeple assume that opinionated people aren't open
> minded.  I like to think of them as experienced, with something to
> offer.  The mere facts that they are willing to listen, and allow me
> to have my own opinion (agree to disagree), and can discuss the topic
> without angst, defensiveness, or getting into a power struggle, makes
> them open minded.

No argument.  I don't believe that you have been denied you opinion.  I
don't believe that you would have felt slighted, had they tried.
 
> When a discussion about a topic is relegated to, "Well, just do it
> because it is how it has been done in the past, and how we want it
> done now", it looses the chance for growth / understanding.

No, Philipp presented substantiated *reasons*.

Again, the list is open, but the administration, which also bears the
cost, is not, so standards are to be accepted.

Noting your disagreement, your expected compliance will most certainly
be appreciated.

--
Patrick Shanahan                        Registered Linux User #207535
http://wahoo.no-ip.org                        @ http://counter.li.org
HOG # US1244711         Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

Brad Bourn
On Friday 11 August 2006 11:04 am, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> No argument.  I don't believe that you have been denied you opinion.  I
> don't believe that you would have felt slighted, had they tried.

Well, to give credit where credit is due, after our long discussions when I
first came to this list, I haven't been "policed" when I top post much
longer.  Whether that is because I've been /dev/null 'd or not, who knows,
but YOU certainly have backed off of me, and it is appreciated.

> > When a discussion about a topic is relegated to, "Well, just do it
> > because it is how it has been done in the past, and how we want it
> > done now", it looses the chance for growth / understanding.
>
> No, Philipp presented substantiated *reasons*.

And therefore, logically, one could assertain that it wasn't him that I was
speaking to.  This in general is where (in my opinion) the majority of
formatting discussions end up.  And that is what I was speaking to.

> Again, the list is open, but the administration, which also bears the
> cost, is not, so standards are to be accepted.

For me it is a matter of Respect, efficiency, ease of use, and personal gain
all combined.

I wouldn't say selfishness (phillip's term) over pesonal gain.  When I help
someone else, ultimately it is for my own personal gain.  Whether for the
feel good "I helped somebody", the carma plan, or both, it is different from
selfishness, because the distinction is that selfishness is to the exclusion
of regard for others.

If someone has the answer to my question, by all means, make it easy for
yourself and me by top posting the quick answer.  If it involves more
explination, or review of quoted text, or break down to specific points, by
all means interject your text with the OP's.  If your reply doesn't speak to,
or need to reference past text, trim them out.

My point is to not badger people who are logically making choices and thinking
for themselves and taking things on a case by case basis, with respect for
others and efficiency, just because it isn't considered the 'norm'.



Hell, if I'm in a store, and someone is about to make a bad, un-educated
choice, that I believe they'll regret, and I have the ability to help, but
not the time, I might do something un-conventional.  Instead of introducing
myself, and going about it in the way that would be expected, or the 'norm',
I may just walk by and say something that will enable the customer to have a
chance at learning what they're missing.  A word or distinction that enables
them to ask the right questions, get what they need to know, and benifit.

I don't think I'll even speak to the "do it my way because I paid for it".  I
would concider it the same tactic of, "this is what has been done in the
past, so do it now".


Oh, and even though I speak these ideals here, I still reserve my right to
tell my son, "Because I said so!".


heheh


B-)

>
> Noting your disagreement, your expected compliance will most certainly
> be appreciated.
>
> --
> Patrick Shanahan                        Registered Linux User #207535
> http://wahoo.no-ip.org                        @ http://counter.li.org
> HOG # US1244711         Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]
>
>
>

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

Brad Bourn
In reply to this post by Michael Wolf-6
me too!

(couldn't resist)


B-)

On Friday 11 August 2006 10:54 am, Michael Wolf wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:43:39 +0200, Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > * Orn E. Hansen ([hidden email]) [20060810 23:18]:
> >
> > > Top post is "ok" in cases, where you aren't answering to anything
specific

> >
> > IMNSHO, top posting is *never* OK, like reading a book back to front is
> > in most cases nonsense.
>
> It's not ok very often, but never say never. :)
>
> When somebody "me too!"s - and there are good reasons to do that,
> sometimes - there's really no harm in the response being on top.  In
> fact, I think it's better put it on top than to pedantically follow
> the post-at-the-bottom rule without understanding why and when it's
> worth following.
>
> It's true that top posting can be pretty inconvenient to people who
> use archaic mailers [0], but I'd argue that those archaic mailers are
> pretty inconvenient anyway.
>
> On the other hand, mails with lines of more than 80 characters (except
> when they include literal output) have no excuse. :)
>
> [0] The official definition of an archaic mailer, that I'm making up
> as I write this, is one that doesn't thread mails.  
>
> --
> Je suis en train d'être dans un train.
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]
>
>
>

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

jdow
It's singularly amazing how much spare time these anal retentive types
are about simple email that is easy enough for a human of average
intelligence to figure out, read, and deal with.

The only "right way" to format email involves making a simple effort
not to obfuscate.

If course, it's more fun to demand machine perfect email formatting
and waste time bitching about it like a bunch of crotchety old men
babbling about their lumbago because they have nothing else to do.

Meanwhile they're wasting more time on perfect formatting than they
save if the email is perfectly formatted.

{^_-}   Joanne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Bourn" <[hidden email]>


me too!

(couldn't resist)


B-)

On Friday 11 August 2006 10:54 am, Michael Wolf wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:43:39 +0200, Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > * Orn E. Hansen ([hidden email]) [20060810 23:18]:
> >
> > > Top post is "ok" in cases, where you aren't answering to anything
specific

> >
> > IMNSHO, top posting is *never* OK, like reading a book back to front is
> > in most cases nonsense.
>
> It's not ok very often, but never say never. :)
>
> When somebody "me too!"s - and there are good reasons to do that,
> sometimes - there's really no harm in the response being on top.  In
> fact, I think it's better put it on top than to pedantically follow
> the post-at-the-bottom rule without understanding why and when it's
> worth following.
>
> It's true that top posting can be pretty inconvenient to people who
> use archaic mailers [0], but I'd argue that those archaic mailers are
> pretty inconvenient anyway.
>
> On the other hand, mails with lines of more than 80 characters (except
> when they include literal output) have no excuse. :)
>
> [0] The official definition of an archaic mailer, that I'm making up
> as I write this, is one that doesn't thread mails.
>
> --
> Je suis en train d'être dans un train.
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]
>
>
>

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

david rankin
Hey, List,

    I am new and I have problem with Zen. It no work. Can U help plz?? Most
software always work. Why not this?? If you have answer, plz write...




    (I love this list....... have a good weekend...)

--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
--

----- Original Message -----
From: "jdow" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol


> It's singularly amazing how much spare time these anal retentive types
> are about simple email that is easy enough for a human of average
> intelligence to figure out, read, and deal with.
>
> The only "right way" to format email involves making a simple effort
> not to obfuscate.
>
> If course, it's more fun to demand machine perfect email formatting
> and waste time bitching about it like a bunch of crotchety old men
> babbling about their lumbago because they have nothing else to do.
>
> Meanwhile they're wasting more time on perfect formatting than they
> save if the email is perfectly formatted.
>
> {^_-}   Joanne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad Bourn" <[hidden email]>
>
>
> me too!
>
> (couldn't resist)
>
>
> B-)
>
> On Friday 11 August 2006 10:54 am, Michael Wolf wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:43:39 +0200, Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > * Orn E. Hansen ([hidden email]) [20060810 23:18]:
>> >
>> > > Top post is "ok" in cases, where you aren't answering to anything
> specific
>> >
>> > IMNSHO, top posting is *never* OK, like reading a book back to front is
>> > in most cases nonsense.
>>
>> It's not ok very often, but never say never. :)
>>
>> When somebody "me too!"s - and there are good reasons to do that,
>> sometimes - there's really no harm in the response being on top.  In
>> fact, I think it's better put it on top than to pedantically follow
>> the post-at-the-bottom rule without understanding why and when it's
>> worth following.
>>
>> It's true that top posting can be pretty inconvenient to people who
>> use archaic mailers [0], but I'd argue that those archaic mailers are
>> pretty inconvenient anyway.
>>
>> On the other hand, mails with lines of more than 80 characters (except
>> when they include literal output) have no excuse. :)
>>
>> [0] The official definition of an archaic mailer, that I'm making up
>> as I write this, is one that doesn't thread mails.
>>
>> --
>> Je suis en train d'être dans un train.
>>
>> --
>> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
>> For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
>> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
>> Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]
>
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]
>
>
>


--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thread Hijacking Protocol

Carl Spitzer-4
In reply to this post by Michael Wolf-6
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 11:54 -0500, Michael Wolf wrote:
<SNIP>
> When somebody "me too!"s - and there are good reasons to do that,
> sometimes - there's really no harm in the response being on top.  In
> fact, I think it's better put it on top than to pedantically follow
> the post-at-the-bottom rule without understanding why and when it's
> worth following.
<SNIP>
IMHO me too or thanks are more personal responses best left off list and
sent to the author of the email your responding to.  As to newbies they
need careful attention and positive reinforsement as you would to make a
sale.  Even though we could all truthfully talk of windows faults and
the likelyhood of it not comming out until 2008, that is still talking
negative which is not what a customer needs.

For me a simple demo and the idea of so much software in a package
cheaply or free was enough but I had a CS degree so I did not need as
much hand holding.  I did still need help with the early installs and
local linux groups are most important in this getting people up and
running until they are ready to blow their magic 8 installs on their
own.  I did my eight in one weekend, decided the disks were bad and
bouthe 8.2 and all was good.

Personally I find the whole top posting vs bottom posting to be
tiresome.  Sometimes I ask a question in a thread and the only response
I get is the tiresome rant about top posting.  Not good for sales.


--
 ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _  _
|    | | | [__  | |  |
|___ |_|_| ___] |  \/


--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to [hidden email]
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: [hidden email]


12