Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/27/05:14:33
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, A BigMouth wrote:
> I'm not getting at you personally Eli.
> But, instead of making a reference to the fucking
> BIBLE,
How can somebody use such offending words and still claim that it
isn't personal?
> why don't you just tell us the address of the
> site, NOT everyone that reads this news group or is
> subscribed to the mailing list will have it.
Actually, I usually do tell where to get the FAQ. If you check my
messages to the news group, you will find the address in almost any of
them that cites from the FAQ. But occasionally, I feel that the
address is given too many times (and most of the people have got it
anyway), so I omit it.
> He asked a simple question and got a fucking
> awkward answer.
Actually, he has already got a detailed answer from somebody else; I
just added my $0.02 worth by pointing to another site where the same
(or similar) package can be found. And I think that pointing to
well-defined portion of an existing docs saves a lot of bandwidth
while at the same time retaining the useful info.
> It really pisses me off when 'newbies' ask a simple
> question and all they get is:
> Read the fucking FAQ its in section blar-d-blar.
> FUCK OFF, just tell'em the answer.
I don't think you can demand anything from me, including how I should
or should not reply to messages on this news group. If you don't like
my replies, just press that ``Delete'' button, or use will power to
skip them. Most of the people seem to actually find them useful, or
else I would have shut up long time ago.
> If not you might as well just post messages saying:
> 'Its in the FAQ'
> 'Read the FAQ'
Actually, most of the things are indeed already in the FAQ.
> well perhaps people havent got time too and there
> looking towards people with a greater knowledge for
> help.
People who don't even have time to swallow what's already has been
chewed up for them in the docs, don't deserve any help, IMHO. It's
OK to not know where the info is, but refusing to read it after you
have been pointed at the precise place and still ask for help is just
plain rude (unless you are paying for such support).
> If what they ask is too complicated to give them a
> good answer with out posting tones of shite to this
> group, then quoting the 'bible' is understandable.
As a matter of fact, most issues are indeed complicated and telling
them in a relatively short message is prone to omissions that lead to
confusion, which leads to more questions, ad nauseum. The FAQ lists
these answers with all the gory details, and is constantly revised to
make the wording as clear as I possibly can. When people reply to the
questions here, they quickly become bored by answering the same
questions time and again, and begin to omit details. Pointing to the
full text in the FAQ avoids these adverse effects.
> It just gets annoying when all your seeing is
> references to the FAQ,
Well, it's more annoying to see those questions in the first place!
Did you know that posting a question that's in a FAQ is a violation of
the Usenet rules?
P.S. I sometimes wonder whether messages like this are meant to test
my abilities of downplaying an offense, or be a trigger for the
overwhelmingly warm support messages I get in reply to them (thanks to
everybody who did, btw!).
P.P.S. And the anonymous post--that's something new. What's next? an
anonymous threat on my life? Come on, YourBigMouth, whoever you are,
get a life, I'm not that important to waste your bits on me.
- Raw text -