jarvis@northstar.dartmouth.edu (Mark Alexander Robinson) (08/19/89)
(This message is not directed to those individuals who offered advice in a helpful and polite manner. To those individuals: thank you again!) I will not be posting to or reading news.newusers.questions anymore. This may not be considered a great loss to anyone; it is certainly no loss to me. In the past week, I have been flamed unnecessarily, both through net mail and through the news system, for asking what I considered a very valid question, and which no one seems to have a specific answer for. If I cannot get a rational answer to a simple question, why bother asking? (Notice that, so certain UNIX gods who get pissed off at spendthrift undergrads won't throw a gear, I am using a VERY short signature.) -- Mark A. Robinson
dente@els.uucp (Colin Dente) (08/21/89)
In article <15113@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> jarvis@northstar.dartmouth.edu (Mark Alexander Robinson) writes: >I will not be posting to or reading news.newusers.questions anymore. This may >not be considered a great loss to anyone; it is certainly no loss to me. > >In the past week, I have been flamed unnecessarily, both through net mail and >through the news system, for asking what I considered a very valid question, >and which no one seems to have a specific answer for. Right shitheads - you've done it now - thanks to your highly useful contributions to this group in the form of flames, both public, and (apparently) private you have succeeded in scaring off our first reader. REMEMBER - this group is the place for new users (and, for that matter, old users) to come to ask questions. If you can give a reasonable, informed reply to a question, then by all means post it; if you just feel like exercising your ego by flaming some poor innocent - then just fuck off will you? At the moment, I'm archiving every posting to this group in order to compile the 'list of commonly asked questions' at some time in the future. Of the 76 articles in my archive, 17 are about .signature files, and a high proportion of them are flames. THIS IS ENOUGH. I would NOT want to see n.n.q become a moderated group for many reasons, but unless we cut the flames, it's going to have to happen if the group is to remain useful. >If I cannot get a rational answer to a simple question, why bother asking? Says it all, really. If you're here to ask a question, fine. If you're here to give a rational answer, fine. If you're here to flame.... well, I've used enough obscenities in this article already. Colin Dente | JANET: dente@uk.ac.man.ee.els Dept. of Electrical Engineering | ARPA: dente@els.ee.man.ac.uk University of Manchester | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!man.ee.els!dente England | These might work now, but then again...
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (08/21/89)
In article <6457@ux.cs.man.ac.uk> dente@els.ee.man.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes: }In article <15113@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> jarvis@northstar.dartmouth.edu (Mark Alexander Robinson) writes: }> }>In the past week, I have been flamed unnecessarily, both through net mail and }>through the news system, for asking what I considered a very valid question, }>and which no one seems to have a specific answer for. } }Right shitheads - you've done it now - thanks to your highly useful }contributions to this group in the form of flames, both public, and }(apparently) private you have succeeded in scaring off our first reader. } }REMEMBER - this group is the place for new users (and, for that matter, old }users) to come to ask questions. If you can give a reasonable, }informed reply to a question, then by all means post it; if you just }feel like exercising your ego by flaming some poor innocent - then }just fuck off will you? On the other hand, what more important lesson for a new user to learn? Human nature is what it is, and if only a tiny percentage of usenetters are @ssholes, that percentage times the size of the net (did someone recently estimate that we're getting on to a million?) means that there is LOTS of crap waiting to flow with the least provocation. This is hardly the most uncivil of the newsgroups, and as our newusers will quickly discover, there is no place to hide: they can retreat from n.n.q, but the flame throwers are not so easily hidden from and will dog them whereever they dare to post. Aside from strictly technical questions (for which, the newuser will discover, you can be flamed just for ASKING, also... flamers know no bounds!), if newusers learn NOTHING more from n.n.q than that there are a LOT of socially maladjusted cretins out there, and, of course, that there are also a fair number of good folk, and you have to balance (and learn to defend yourself) this group will be a roaring success. /Bernie\
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (08/21/89)
news.newusers.questions? oh yeah, that's the group about .signature files. --Ed
rec@elf115.uu.net (Roger Critchlow) (08/21/89)
In article <6457@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>, dente@els.uucp (Colin Dente) writes: > At the moment, I'm archiving every posting to this group in order to > compile the 'list of commonly asked questions' at some time in the > future. Of the 76 articles in my archive, 17 are about .signature > files, and a high proportion of them are flames. THIS IS ENOUGH. > Given that certain flame wars seem almost as regular as the phases of the moon, a 'list of commonly flamed questions' might be appro- priate, too. The battle of .sig didn't start here and it won't end here. And there are other recurrent hostilities which new users could be warned away from. BTW, the usual 'commonly asked' article format is well intentioned but seems more intended for hard copy perusal than USENET. Why not post each commonly asked question with answer as a separate article on a rotating schedule so that each article gets renewed every few weeks? Then new users could scan for their burning question with their newsreader rather than eye-grepping through the usual non- digest format digest which these tips usually arrive in. -- rec --