>>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.
Understood, but those who *can't* bottom-post (eg, on Berries) can say so, and
for a while at least, that can be forgiven, ie, use a normal computer next
time. Berries are nice for, "Ooh, lemme check my email now and send replies
about any pressing matters", *not* usually, "Hmmm, I think I'll ask about
deleting buffers on the vim list...". Past a certain point, though, patience
can run out.
And if anyone wants to helpfully chime in with, "Ummm, we don't do html email
here, can you reformat the email and send it again as plaintext? Thanks.",
great, message received. *Then*, essentially saying "No, I'm gonna stay with
what *I* like, and scroo yoo!" is grounds for ignoring the twit, whereas a
resend of the query with "Sorry, force of habit..." gets the message across and
corrects errant behavior.
>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:
Absolutely. But typically no one corrects (even unintentional) bad behavior,
the offender continues, and then we all have these ongoing threads about how
top-posting is eeeevil, arguments pro/con, /ad nauseam/.
>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
Ignore the initial *query*, perhaps, but educate the newbie to do the "right"
(acto list rules) thing, first.
On a list where top-posting is the default, fine, I'll top-post. ("When in
Rome...") But don't expect me to answer such a query point-by-point. One bulk
answer at the top, *you* figure out which point pertains to what quoted-section
below. Such is the nature of *that* beast.
But here where interspersed bottom-posting (ie, under the relevant quoted
section) rules, *how* hard is it to follow that convention?
Point out the list's convention, suggest not too subtly that doing so will get
answers vs being ignored, and most likely, problem solved. Get an argument why
top-posting should be acceptable, and the person then gets ignored.
>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.
Exactly. Usually, though, when I see a reply above quoted text, I just skip to
the next one. A newbie wouldn't be posting an initial query to an existing
post, so chances are good the person's just willfully ignoring the convention.
So I skip/ignore it.
>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.
I just don't have the time/patience/desire to be annoyed. Some people sign up
to the list to learn things (as I did), to ask questions (fine, but follow the
conventions of the list), and even to help others by answering their questions.
The last is an act of generosity. Why should I be *annoyed* if I'm trying to
*help* someone? Again, it's like someone starting out by asking the question,
"Hey retards, how do you...?". The appropriate response should be, "Eh, screw
*you*, pal...", and skip to the next message.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
