rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (02/12/91)
In article <2428@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <832@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> cowan@soleil.sps.mot.com (Andrew H Cowan) writes: >>Yes, I posted the original question. And here's a summary for those >>who are interested. All wizards who object to sh*t like this in >>comp.unix.wizards should note the "Followup-To:" line and lighten >>up a little. > >They should, rather, get lost. They're simply jealous that >the human mind is not wired into the internet, and that occasionally >along comes a person who, not having read the net from RFC 1, asks >a question that has been answered before. > >Learning is a monotonic growth experience, education is an >exercise in iteration. > >The only thing more annoying than frequently-asked questions >is derogatory flames of frequently-asked questions. Will someone >please add to the various FAQs that "Why is this question returning?" >has a very simple answer based on the generational structure of life? You've missed the point. I don't think that most of the flame here is because someone asked how to get rid of a file with a '/' in it. It is instead because of all the people who are offering wrong answers. This exact argument went though this group last year with basically the same results. The point is -- this is supposed to be a place where people who really actually guarenteed know the answer to some difficult question will answer you. cuw is not the place for people to throw in their two cents. There's a whole other tree that was created for just that purpose. and finally, just because a question comes back again and again, doesn't mean that all the wrong answers have to be dragged out again. that's what the faq is for -- if someone wants to say "hey I read these answers in the faq, and I didn't see this idea .... why won't this work?" -- that, in my opinon, would be fine. in summary -- it's not a question of people being out of line. it's a question of being considerate when you offer advice to someone who is expecting your answer to work. -- Rodney
bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) (02/14/91)
In article <15161@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <2428@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>The only thing more annoying than frequently-asked questions >>is derogatory flames of frequently-asked questions. > >No, another annoying thing is people who respond without thinking. Your self-deprecation is showing, Doug. And you didn't mean "without thinking," you meant "without knowing." I doubt anyone ever posts without thinking, and I'm certain noone ever posts with full knowledge of the topic and the long-term, residual influence of their posting. In between those two extremes is a vast hierarchy of newsgroups, networked machinery, and logged-in people who occasionally help each other. >Frequently-asked questions are NOT appropriate for comp.unix.wizards; >that's why the newsgroup comp.unix.questions exists. What of questions that deal with "wizardly" issues that appear to repeat occasionally when one or the other of the "wizards" doesn't bother to archive and study comp.unix.wizards articles? Or do you claim to know the magic determinant for when a question is a question and when it is an incantation to invoke the wizards? Moot point. Appropriateness is not the issue on which I deride. Attitude toward inappropriateness, is. Simply answer the question, explain that it's an oldie, show the factotum the way to comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c et al, and nod your head condescendingly when he says, in his childlike sincerity "thanks, O prestidigitatory one!" It'd save our n-keys a shitload of skipping of the one thing more frequent than any question or class of questions. --Blair "There are no stupid questions; only flames of valid questions." Ob. sycophancy: When was the last time Chris Torek posted especially to complain about the appropriateness of a question? When was the last time he complained, period? Seems to me he's got the right approach to this stuff.
bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) (02/14/91)
In article <=H_&Z9#@rpi.edu> rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes: >You've missed the point. I don't think that most of the flame here is >because someone asked how to get rid of a file with a '/' in it. It is >instead because of all the people who are offering wrong answers. > >This exact argument went though this group last year with basically the >same results. Those who do not learn from history are numerous and reproductive; so, what's your point? >The point is -- this is supposed to be a place where people who really >actually guarenteed know the answer to some difficult question will answer >you. cuw is not the place for people to throw in their two cents. There's >a whole other tree that was created for just that purpose. And which might that be? I've seen plenty of comp.unix.internals/wizards threads that were valuable only after a large number of people had tweaked the solution. That's how problems get solved. Anyone who is capable of solving problems alone isn't hanging around playing pinochle and kibbitzing about slashes in filenames. And, some questions have no answer, only answer-determining algorithms, with many decision points, with many options, depending on the systems under which the algorithms are to be implemented. I'd rather have fifty short, half-right answers and a clue than one, dead-right answer and be left with the need to post asking what the answer means on my platform. Someone posted something incorrect? Welcome to the planet Earth. Say it's wrong, say what's right, give us all some sleep. (Pardon my hypocrisy; someone's gotta sacrifice so that others may gain, and I have little to lose. (Hi, Doug! :-)) >and finally, just because a question comes back again and again, doesn't >mean that all the wrong answers have to be dragged out again. As a tautology, that would be correct, if only because asking a repeated question can't prevent a wrong answer. However, it's likely that if the question didn't get into everyone's knowledge, the correct answer couldn't have, either. In fact, if in the standard methodology the answer is hidden but necessary, then the question must eventually be deduced, but the answer -- right or wrong -- would have to wait for the question before it could be produced. >if someone wants to say "hey I read these answers in >the faq, and I didn't see this idea .... why won't this work?" -- that, >in my opinon, would be fine. Elitism is no defense for flaming this poor slob: "Hey, I've been reading this group far longer than my employer and I think is valuable (must be ten minutes, at least), and I haven't come across this question, and I'm on a deadline and ... how do I get back rm'ed files?" Any question has essentially that same etiology, even if the deadline is only for personal reasons, or economics is only a minor cause. If you had the time and character to wait for the truth to come to you, or the resources to attract it irresistably, you wouldn't need question marks at all. Anyone who asks "What's a FAQ?" without first having heard of one is clairvoyant. >in summary -- it's not a question of people being out of line. it's a >question of being considerate when you offer advice to someone who is >expecting your answer to work. The general admonition for that is to test it yourself. But even that is a lesson that requires experience to prove its economy. --Blair "You don't. You weep for their unlinking and pray that it's on the backups and you can find a good hypnotist to help you type in your changes again."
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (02/14/91)
In article <=H_&Z9#@rpi.edu> rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes: >and finally, just because a question comes back again and again, doesn't >mean that all the wrong answers have to be dragged out again. that's what >the faq is for -- if someone wants to say "hey I read these answers in >the faq, and I didn't see this idea .... why won't this work?" -- that, >in my opinon, would be fine. I certainly agree with you, but let me make a suggestion. Instead of people complaining about people sending out wrong answers, or even answers at all, let's all try doing this: If someone posts a frequently-asked question, mail them a copy of the FAQ posting, and point out that the answer is there. If someone posts an answer, be it correct or incorrect, mail them a copy of the FAQ posting to remind them that the answer is already available to everyone in a consistent format. I did this myself for a while, made some friends in the first case, and got some pretty interesting excuses in the second.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/16/91)
In article <2509@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>cuw is not the place for people to throw in their two cents. There's >>a whole other tree that was created for just that purpose. >And which might that be? Comp.unix.questions, which you presumably know since you posted to both groups. Come on, get with the program!
sjg@melb.bull.oz.au (Simon J Gerraty) (02/18/91)
In <2509@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <=H_&Z9#@rpi.edu> rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes: >>You've missed the point. I don't think that most of the flame here is >>because someone asked how to get rid of a file with a '/' in it. It is >>instead because of all the people who are offering wrong answers. >I've seen plenty of comp.unix.internals/wizards threads >that were valuable only after a large number of people had >tweaked the solution. That's how problems get solved. >Anyone who is capable of solving problems alone isn't >hanging around playing pinochle and kibbitzing about >slashes in filenames. I don't think that the recent "slashes in filenames" thread fits into that category. Sure if someone is asking something complex or out of the ordinary, a bit of brain-storming is in order. >>in summary -- it's not a question of people being out of line. it's a >>question of being considerate when you offer advice to someone who is >>expecting your answer to work. >The general admonition for that is to test it yourself. That's the exact point Rodney Peck was making. The suggestions along the lines of "rm foo\/bar" had obviously never been tested by the posters. Of course they were harmless suggestions but not all the wrong answers are. I am no wizard, (how can I be without ever having access to AT&T source?), yet I know UNIX pretty well. I posted a question (to comp.unix.questions) regarding removing a file with a slash in it last year. I didn't ask "how the %^$# do I get rid of it?" but, "hey I can't see how this can be done without using the raw device, am I wrong?". I should have pointed out in my post that I knew about fsdb and clri, but in any case I knew enough not to be upset or confused by twits who e-mailed me along the lines of "RTF-FAQ !!! use wild cards" or equally silly things. However many people post questions to which they don't know the answer, and _needing_ help not additonal confusion. If they ask in comp.unix.{internals,wizards} they are hoping for answers they can trust. If they were able to recognize the stupid suggestions for what they were, they probably wouldn't have needed to post in the first place. Let's face it. Rightly or wrongly, many readers take as gospel that which they read in groups like comp.unix.wizards. I think Rodney Peck's summary is right on target. -- Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@melb.bull.oz.au> #include <disclaimer,_witty_comment>