On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:12:07AM -0500, Mullins, Ron wrote: > Andrej Hocevar wrote: > > >did you deliberately insult me with your self-boasting remarks or > >was it just me reacting prickly? to me it seems that my question > > It would seem just a little of both. ;) Karsten is often brusque in > requesting list etiquette be observed. I will share a better way to change > /proc entries later. > (this time in accordance with your suggestions about quoting) i'm glad to hear that karsten is not as bad as i wanted him to be. :) my apologies for that. but the truth is i felt offended. however, it's better now. i'm still not really changing my mind about anything i said and so sticking to my way.
> >mails that make you react irritable? yes, i know it's my not using > >the shift-key etc., but this is a list for our debian-linux-related > >problems, isn't it. so why then do you feel the urge to act as if i > > You were asking for help, weren't you? He's asking that you make it easier > on everyone who will read you mail and try to help you. It's only right that > you do so. > > >please, don't make even more insulting generalizations about other > >people's laziness. my second mail on this topic clearly shows that i > > He didn't state that you were lazy. He said he was. i got it wrong. once again, sorry. > > >(about which i > >read in the very same /usr/src/linux/documentation directory that > >you've mentioned). > > <snip> > >if you ever intend to help me again, please consider this advice on > >echoing. > > He told you he was going off of memory. Take that literally. > > >nb: my thoughts on quoting are unfortunately different from yours. > >in general, when writing anything similar to (scientific) research > >or any other papers vaguely connected with my domain of study -- > >that's comparative literature -- i strictly follow mla's rules. but > > I'm not familiar with mla's rules.... never mind -- that's just an example. mla means "modern language association". i only wanted to express how sometimes quoting indeed is crucial; following those rules simply means respecting other people's work and not pretending to be the author of a theory you're not. my point was that it's not that necessary here. > > Please notice that I have quoted beneath your text that I'm referring to. > Can't you see how easy it is to follow? How clear it is what I'm replying > to? Let's say that we discussed five things you had problems with and, for > example, you wanted to let me know that I was wrong on the fourth one. You > reply at the top of the message that I was wrong and the answer was 42. Now > I'm completely uncertain as to which thing I'm wrong about and what should > be 42. Posting below the text you are referring to also refreshes the > person, not only on the situation, but what both of you have said. of course, but you should know what questions you were asking and keep a copy of the originals. if anything else is needed for the sake of clarity, you can always find a way -- there cannot be rigid rules to control that. there's only the writer's ability. yet this is not the right place for the debate. i hope i won't be excluded from this list and that i can rely on your help in the future too. thanks, andrej
