From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP reserves wrong int size
Organization: Low Charisma Anonymous
Message-ID: <3b3d97f4.363378277@news.primus.ca>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010626162738 DOT 17201T-100000 AT is> <3b3b5513 DOT 215163061 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <3B3B96DE DOT F1C32A49 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3b3bf2f8 DOT 255590145 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <1659-Fri29Jun2001095837+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 43
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:18:18 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.6
X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca
X-Trace: news1.tor.primus.ca 993892978 207.176.153.6 (Sat, 30 Jun 2001 05:22:58 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 05:22:58 EDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:58:37 +0300, "Eli Zaretskii"
<eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> sat on a tribble, which squeaked:

>> Okay, I'll grant that. It looked suspiciously like a command, rather
>> than a suggestion, the way it was worded.
>
>``A command''?  All it says is "please read them".  And I though _I_
>was having problems with understanding written English.

"There are Intel reference manuals on this, please read them." comes
off sounding at best like a request to read something along with a
vague implication that I should *already* have read them. And the
terseness betrays some kind of impatience that also carries the
suggestion that "yet another newbie just asked a stupid question" or
something. I can't see that kind of attitude, or wording that suggests
that attitude, being justified except when the reference involved is
the newsgroup FAQ, and even then "Your question is answered in the
FAQ. Please read it. If your news server doesn't currently have a copy
in the group, there's one at http://rtfm.mit.edu/foo/bar.html." is far
preferable to "There's a FAQ for this newsgroup. Read it."

>> "Not sure anyone here can sum it up in just a few words, but all of
>> the gory details are in the reference manuals at http://foo, though
>> I'm not sure you'll want to slog through all of those."
>
>That's what I said.

Not quite -- the tone was different and the URL was absent. (Absent a
URL, if someone says "manual" they're liable to think "book", followed
shortly by "how expensive -- and can I find it?"...)

>This is considered common knowlege these days, like the need to look
>up the FAQ.

The FAQ alone should be the "common knowledge". Some language or
another, some programming knowledge, and the FAQ's contents are what
can reasonably be assumed of a reader of the newsgroup.

-- 
Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980
"There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980
"This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998
Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail addy.