Brian Butterworth wrote: > Yes, I am sure you do. That's your opinion. I'm sure I probably don't > agree with it as I'm sure that I regard etiquette as something for Mrs > Beeton and the 1950s. Uh huh. And yet you hold an attachment to a 12 year old RFC codifying behaviour in a time of 9600b modems?
> Also, I don't hold "good manners" as being anything other than a > particular social affectation. But that's just my opinion. Let me put this in terms you *may* understand... Good manners and polite behaviour (etiquette) are the CRC of effective communication. In fact I think you'll find they are the difference between an unreliable UDP storm and a reliable TCP stream. I suggest you seriously think about that point. Of course you can critique it but I think there's something in it. > I've been writing about netiquette since the early 1990s, and the RFC is > the codified version of it. It's a published and widely distributed set > of rules. It's a shame you have yet to grasp the difference between knowledge and enlightenment. > Whilst it seems that no-one actually agrees with it in it's entirely, it > is at least a published and relevant definition. So is the Koran. So? > The usual retort to this kind of argument is to provide another > reference link that trumps my definition... if no-one has one, can we > let this discussion rest? There are times when being accused of being a geek is a compliment. This isn't one of them. David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
