Saluton Gene :) Gene Kwiecinski <g...@dclab.com> skribis: >>I can see the moderators are patient and polite when reminding bottom >>posting. IMO your analogy is inappropriate. > > Well, I don't really care about what any moderators might do on the > list, but those who *insist* on top-posting, sending html email with > garish colorschemes or blinding backgrounds, anything annoying or even > *offensive* to some, should be prepared to have their posts be ignored > and deleted unread by those of us who find such rude behavior > offensive. > > And yes, it's *rude* to take the "Screw you, I don't care what *your* > guidelines/conventions happen to be, I'll do what *I* damned well > please!".
Amen to that, Gene, very well said. Moreover, the mailing list guidelines are not at all arbitrary, there are reasons why they are as they are, and I've given some of these reasons here in the past. > Hey, if they want to take that chance, fine by me... I'm not going to > nag them about it, I'm not going to argue the merits of bottom-posting > or plaintext-only email with them, I'll simply ignore them. I've discovered a great tool for that: GMail filters. Of course, any decent MUA has such filters, that greatly avoid wasting time. > And there's a big clue right there. If someone who insists on > top-posting, or sending garish html email, etc., were to not get a > single reply to his query, later ask why not, *then* someone would > clue in the person as to why not, hey, he'll *learn*. But as long as > people give the rude posters an exhaustive answer, and only a > parenthetical "We try to not top-post here." or "Ow, that blinding > background hurt my eyes.", there's zero incentive to *not* correct > that behavior. What does he care, now that he's *gotten* his answer? > You don't give a dog his treat first and then ask him to sit up, roll > over, bark, whatever. No, you deny the treat *until* he does what you > ask of him. > > Is that rather condescending, treating a rude poster as a dog? Maybe, > but I *guarantee* you that approach will eventually work. I have a different view here: people may be used to top-post because of other mailing lists or whatnot, so I'm patient by default. If a top-poster has been warned and does it again, I filter that top-poster. Any member should be aware of the list guidelines, but I'm realistic and I know that almost nobody reads them, so a warning is not a bad idea: being "hard" by default and ignoring the first message from a new member just because he used HTML or topposted looks a bit rude to me. But once warned, I don't see any reason to be polite with them and since repeating the same warning again and again doesn't seem to have any effect, I just filter them. And it works great for me. I'm open to discuss list guidelines here (although I don't define them and I don't have the power to enforce them), of course, but repeatedly ignoring them is plain rudeness in my not-so-humble opinion and I don't have to put up with that. -- Raúl "DervishD" Núñez de Arenas Coronado Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
