On Sat 07 Aug 2021 at 14:26:41 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 10:02:36AM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2021-08-07 9:31 a.m., Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 11:56:52AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > >> On Fri 06 Aug 2021 at 19:11:48 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> [...] > > >> > > >>> It's only required that people believe you did something for them to act > > >>> like you did it. > > >> > > >> Indeed. Disseminate an unsubstantiated rumour (as in this thread) and > > >> it's not long before the lynch mob hits the streets. > > > > > > I would never have blocked "Gunnar" based on an accusation that he > > > was trolling. > > > > > > I blocked him after he confessed that he was trolling. > > Personally blocking people / adding them to your "I'll ignore this person > when I see them" is fine. [The old "Congratulations, you have found your > way into my killfile. *PLONK* - type message.]
Given that it is a user's right to control the mail he wants to receive, I have always found it it strange when a blocking is announced to the world. > Accusing people of trolling is generally not helpful in any way. It is hardly assuming good faith. Just do not reply. > > I think that the line that was crossed simply mandate that he gets > > ignored by now. > > I did so with the last message he sent me yesterday (and posted on the > > list). Was a bunch of hard to follow series of sentence. But this > > confirm that it seems to be a choice done on having incomprehensible > > messages and loose talk, because he did write some clear and well > > written message. > > I think that this person had difficulties in explaining themselves. That made > it annoying / frustrating to see no progress. We all threw in effort and it > didn't seem to be going very far. I'm not going to speculate whther that > difficulty was accidental / deliberate to wastte our time. Speculating on people's motives in public is fraught at the best of times. On this list "Assume good faith" is a guiding principle so you wouldn't do it anyway. > > I feel that many person cherry pick one message, like the one I wrote > > and got out of context, talking about a Lynch mob. > > > > Often when someone ask for help, we'll answer back that there's > > information missing so we can answer properly. > > Example, the person say > > *I can't start X11* > > And we'll ask > > What version of Debian are you running ? > > What are the outputs ? Logs ? > > What's your graphic card / GPU ? > > etc... > > > > See also why I picked some elements from Greg's list / David's message to > put into the monthly FAQ messsage. It now has a section on how to ask > good questions and read the answers. Thanks, list, for reminding me and > making me amend the mail. > > > Why do we do so ? > > So our answer is relevant. > > > > Same rules apply when giving comment, if you want to have it relevant > > then look at the whole story. > > Or you'll only get a part and go off track. > > This has been a particularly frustrating thread and hard to follow in > general. I found its general thrust easy to follow. User-criticism par excellance. -- Brian.
