Hi Rob,
Rob Dixon wrote:
Raymond Wan wrote:
Rob Dixon wrote:
Rob Coops wrote:
I don't mean to sound disrespectful since you're far more helpful to
this list than I am -- so, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I
genuinely would like to know -- where does it say that bottom-posting is
the "standard for this list"? I noticed you (and only you) have said
this a few times in the last month and I'm sure you're also getting
tired of reminding people... However, what was a request is now
stronger as you're saying it's a standard?
I looked a bit for some etiquette list for this mailing list and
couldn't find out. Perhaps it's out there somewhere?
BTW, I will admit that bottom-posting (with removal of very old text)
looks better than top-posting...a practice which I haven't fully
adopted. So, I don't disagree with you...just the fact that you said it
was "standard" caught my attention... Thanks!
Hey - be disrespectful! If it bounces badly you will know you shouldn't have
been.
There are people who oversee this list. The shame is they let pretty much
everything by, in fact I haven't seen an intervention in the last year.
To be fair it's mainly about abuse, but then they have to let Randal have his
say too so then anything goes.
I would very much like more order to this list. If anyone has thoughts on the
matter then please email me privately (erm, about keeping order) (erm - order to
this list) then I promise to collect your thoughts and tell the people who
should know. After that I may tell you what was said and then something may
change. There is my promise. Let me know if you wish.
Oh, and Raymond: ask all the regular posters whom you respect what they think
about posting style. They flagged way before I did :D
I was off-line for a bit and glad to get back on-line and see a healthy
discussion about this!
I haven't been around long on this list and for all I know, it might be
moderated. So, my message's purpose was also to ask that (indirectly).
Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but I see a small difference between
following an RFC and something being a "standard" or "rule" -- the
latter seems stronger to me. On the one hand, I think if you are asking
a question that could be solved with a quick Google, the least you can
do is follow the etiquette of the list. So, I agree there...
This time, it wasn't just the word "standard" that flashed on my mail
reader :-), but also that the message was directed at Rob C., who gave a
well-worded reply to someone's problem that wasn't a single line like
"see this web page" or "Just do this <Perl code>". It could have
been...I can see that I would have written that little.
So, I think my point is...besides to see what the proper etiquette
was...to point out that there is a thin line between asking people to
adhere to an RFC and turning people away/off who are giving good
advice. This is a contradictory statement, but both perseverance and
restraint in reminding the rules? Corollary: People who are asking us
to do their Perl homework, though, deserve no mercy. ;-)
As for suggestions, Rob, I got a couple as I wrote this -- send them to
you off-line. Thanks!
Ray
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://learn.perl.org/
