brians@sequent.UUCP (Brian Sheets) (08/19/89)
I am an avid reader of many newsgroups and I have noticed something that really is disturbing. new users who come here with the intent of learning things getting flamed for for not knowing something. All you people out there who jump to flame these people who are just trying to gain a little information by asking question need to stop before they hit that "F" or "R" key and remember when you where just starting out and put yourself in their position. Also remember that not everyone who reads news is a "Technical" person and that it is just a source of information and not a way of life. -- Brian Sheets KA7KDX _ /| "I'll be back" 19730 SW Prospect Ln. \`o_O' Aloha, Or 97007 ( ) Aachk! - Arnold Schwarzenegger, 503-526-4091 U Phft! Any movie he's been in.
edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) (08/20/89)
In article <20393@sequent.UUCP> brians@sequent.UUCP (Brian Sheets) writes: >new users who come here with the intent of learning things getting >flamed for for not knowing something. > >All you people out there who jump to flame these people who are >just trying to gain a little information by asking question >need to stop before they hit that "F" or "R" key and remember when >you where just starting out and put yourself in their position. Ummmm, well, not all of us, ok, please. I have seen some useful articles posted. >Also remember that not everyone who reads news is a "Technical" >person and that it is just a source of information and not a way of life. Your point is (IMHO) most valid. This newsgroup (news.newusers.questions) was created to provide a forum for net.newcomers to *learn* how things work around here. Instead, all too often, they've managed to learn all about being flamed for asking a simple question. **THIS IS BAD** (sorry people, but the caps were necessarily intentional). I respectfully suggest that perhaps the charter of news.newusers.questions should be ammended to prohibit flames, as they serve no useful purpose here. This newsgroup should contain the following: 1/ requests for information 2/ fulfillment of requests for information This again brings up the topic "should news.newusers.questions be a moderated newsgroup?". If we as supposedly intelligent posters can't remember what group we're in, then we must either ask a moderator to make intelligent decisions for us, or create another newsgroup for flames. The last thing I want to see is a call for discussion on news.newusers.questions.d (flame.land) Instead, let's be a bit more civil and helpful here, people. >Brian Sheets KA7KDX _ /| "I'll be back" Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew ->home: changing to: edhew@xenitec.uucp [but be patient for new maps]
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (08/21/89)
In article <20393@sequent.UUCP>, brians@sequent.UUCP (Brian Sheets) writes: > new users who come here with the intent of learning things getting > flamed for for not knowing something. I think there is much true about the notion that computer people are not necessarily the best at human relations. (Of course, neither is Morton Downy.) How many times I have seen Net Gods flame and belittle -- and then sanctimoniously call to Netiquette as their sacred badge of honor. It does no good to get in a flame fest with these guys, because they truely believe they hold the moral high ground -- and anything is justified in defense of their positions. Since hoping the situation will change won't actually make it change -- the best we can do is be aware of the situation -- and otherwise ignore the abusive Net Gods. Take it from a battle scard warrior -- with very recent wounds. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -
iadt2jf@prism.gatech.EDU (John A. Freeman) (08/21/89)
In article <1989Aug20.035314.16826@xenitec.uucp> edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >I respectfully suggest that perhaps the charter of news.newusers.questions >should be ammended to prohibit flames, as they serve no useful purpose >here. This newsgroup should contain the following: > 1/ requests for information > 2/ fulfillment of requests for information I heartily agree! This newsgroup was created expressly as a source of infor- mation for novice net users. That is a valid and beneficial function. These ongoing discussions about the relative correctness of anwers to the same question are absurd. Those of you who have posted your version of the arg- ument against long signatures have wasted a hell of a lot more bandwith with redundant flaming than any dozen long sigs. Let's drop it, okay? And furthermore, as experienced net users you should be in the habit of reading the remaining postings before replying; repeat answers are the most common waste of time on this (and many another) newsgroup. >This again brings up the topic "should news.newusers.questions be a >moderated newsgroup?". If we as supposedly intelligent posters can't >remember what group we're in, then we must either ask a moderator to >make intelligent decisions for us, or create another newsgroup for flames. >The last thing I want to see is a call for discussion on > news.newusers.questions.d (flame.land) Without a doubt this should be a moderated newsgroup. It's the only way to provide the service that this newsgroup was intended to provide. If I have a legitimate question about net usage, form, etiquette, etc., then I have a right to an informative, educated, non-abusive answer, even if the question sounds stupid to certain net.snobs who are hovering over this newsgroup. Let's get a moderator, or two, or three (but no more), and limit net.newusers. questions to questions and answers. Any discussion about the anwers (or the questions) can be relagated to a news.newusers.questions.d group, as mentioned above. -- John A. Freeman Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!iadt2jf ARPA: iadt2jf@prism.gatech.edu
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (08/21/89)
In article <1989Aug20.035314.16826@xenitec.uucp> edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >This newsgroup (news.newusers.questions) >was created to provide a forum for net.newcomers to *learn* how things >work around here. Unfortunately, that's just what they're getting -- a real good lesson in flame wars. Too bad, I was really looking forward to this newsgroup. Now I'm getting sick of it. -- Geoff Allen - WINCO Computer Process Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff | Disclaimer: Any thoughts here are my own ...ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff | not WINCO's or DOE's or anyone else's.
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (08/22/89)
In article <1584@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: > How many times I have seen Net Gods flame and belittle -- and then > sanctimoniously call to Netiquette as their sacred badge of honor. > > It does no good to get in a flame fest with these guys, because they > truely believe they hold the moral high ground -- and anything is justified > in defense of their positions. No those are not the real Net Gods, who are mostly very polite. Those are the Net Bozos, who sometimes pose as Net Gods to fool you. For the benefit of new users, I post the following advice on how to react to being flamed on the net. (1) Think before you post. Read your article carefully and make sure it makes sense and is spelled right. Do not ever post to a group that you haven't read for at least a week so you can be sure that your question was not answered yesterday. This will save you from lots of flames. (2) Most flames have a point. The poster may be rude, but the point is correct, for example when the flamer says RTFM and the answer actually is in the manual. If so, just let it drop. You got your answer and a lesson, if not a polite one. (3) Of the pointless flames, most are from well known flamers who everyone knows are bozos. Don't even bother to reply. They have been flamed by much more experienced hands than you, and it has never done any good. Just every few days or so, they get an urge to flame someone. This time it was you. It doesn't mean anything. This is another reason to read a newsgroup for at least a week before posting. You get to know the bozos. (4) This leaves a very small fraction of flames where the flamer has a point but not a very good one and some argument is worth while. In that case, wait until you have completely cooled off, compose a completely logical and polite response in the best writing style you are capable of that will explain to the rest of the net why you are right and the flamer is wrong. Do this once. Let the flamer have the last word immediately. He or she will get it eventually anyway. Do not attempt to convince the flamer. You will not be successful and will look foolish in the attempt. Hope this helps.
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (08/22/89)
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > No those are not the real Net Gods, who are mostly very polite. Those > are the Net Bozos, who sometimes pose as Net Gods to fool you. A matter of terminology. The requirement for being a Net God is to proclaim yourself one. This is most assuredly NOT to be confused with those people who actively carry out the hum-drum housekeeping tasks associated with the net. (Although there does seem to be some voluntary crossover :-) > You will not be successful and will look foolish in the attempt. As depressing as this statement is, I am afraid it is all too true. You simply cannot mount a logical defense against flaming that anyone will bother to read throughly. They will, through sloppy reading, misinterpret, ignore key points, invent meanings and otherwise pamper their prejudices. To engage in a battle against flames is to draw all these initially uninvolved "helpers" into a thousand little battles against you. My favorite (so to speak) tactic of these "helpers" is to launch into a public rebuttal of whatever it was you said, and then concluded with the statement, "Can we just let this issue drop now!" Wouldn't it have been nice if THEY had dropped the issue a couple of paragraphs earlier. Oh well, there'll never be a sanctimony shortage on this net. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -