Etiquette (was Re: left justify)

[Fairlight]

>From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Jeff Harrison shouted:
> 
> It is amusing, although not unexpected at all, that
> you agreed with my #1 and George agreed with my #2.  

True.  Anecdotal evidence would lend itself to predicting just that.

> I know it was not much of a flame for you - perhaps a
> coffee warmer as you say, but rude nonetheless.  My
> point was of course that #1 and #2 are both rude.

Please tell me--which is more rude...the explosion, or the idiot that mixed
volatile base and acid in large quantities?  Personally, I don't think you
blame the effect--you blame the cause.

The difference being that your #2 is a reaction to #1.  If #1 is not
presented, then #2 will never come into existence by virtue of catalytic
reaction.

IOW, it comes down to the old saw about telling the doctor, "It hurts when
I do this." 

"Then DON'T DO THAT!"  :)

There's a large difference between instigation and reaction.  Don't give
someone something negative to react to, you won't get a negative reaction
unless the reacting party is pretty unreasonable.  By and large, believe
it or not, I'm a pretty reasonable guy.  I see a lot of negative things to
react to, unfortunately.  And lately, the incidence rate has been on the
rise.  Almost daily, I find myself contemplating Ripley's line, "Did IQ's
just -drop- sharply while I was away?"

> You are probably correct that being polite to such a
> poster will not prevent the unnecessarily long thread
> that will likely ensue.  However, neither will being
> rude.  

There's the chain of logic that says that by coddling people in their own
rudeness from point #1, you only enable them and propogate the problem; if
you cut it short (even if you have to be rude in doing so to drive home the
point), you eventually stop #1 from appearing, thereby stopping #2 from
ever becoming an issue, since it's a reaction to #1 in the first place.

That's my thinking on it, anyway.

> This list is a really great resource for people, but I
> know that there are many people that are hesitant to
> post because they fear that they will get flamed or at
> least have their "coffee warmed".  If our goal is to
> help people - and that is my goal at least - then I
> believe that we should try to be little more civil.  

It's -always- been my take that if someone is too timid to venture forth a
post because of what other people might think, their problems extend far
beyond the immediate technical issues at hand.  Our ultra-PC society has
eroded away the thick skins we developed after a few thousand years of
developing them.  Nowadays, uttering a simple, "No," is considered abusive,
offensive, rude, and possibly obscene.  It's all gone too far.  People can
feel free to try to judge me by those inane standards, but I refute the
extent to which they've been carried and extended, and the validity of any
such judgement.  I don't buy into this touchy-feely hyper-sensitive culture
we're continuing to develop still further each day.  What we've done is
create a bunch of excuses for whining.  The world already had enough
legitimate reasons before we created artificial ones.  I mean, really,
if someone getting "flamed" (or even "warmed") is their main concern,
they ought to know what -real- problems are.  This is only a quarter-step
above people whining about how hard the 'game' is on Survivor--hell,
they volunteered, idiots!  Maybe they should visit some of the truly
unfortunate--the homeless, the crippled, the diseased--and converse with
them about the -real- injustices of life before prattling on about how
they've been mistreated so grossly.

I mean, what's next?  How about interpersonal therapy as a sideband on the
consulting aspect?  "Mmmmm.  Yes.  I see.  And how do you -feel- about
this particular bug?  What emotions does it evoke?  Tell me about your
mother..."  If we coddle them just a little more, we may as well just pack
it in now, because it'll never end.  We'll need PhD's and AMA licenses for
psychology to do computer consulting before too long at this rate.

I maintain:  Cessation of #1 will prevent #2 from occurring, by and large,
since #2 is a reaction to #1.  

The shorthand, plain-English for this is, "If you don't like the
consequences, don't do something wrong in the first place."

> Good Job on that form.  I hope that people will use it!

Thanks.  And we can hope.  It's not even so much the form, as I said.
It's just that the information should be there, up-front.  From a
time-management standpoint, everyone would win.  We'd have time to answer
more questions, or more free time to move on to other things individually
when everything's been solved.  It's simply more effective.  Heck, I'm one
of the -least- business-inclined in the 'professional' sense around here,
since I don't buy into most of the nonsensical buzzwords and all that rot
that means you're a qualified stuffed suit, but time management is just
common sense use of resources.  It doesn't take a high school graduate
(or even a well-informed grade-school student) to see that presenting a
problem without elucidating it clearly is a waste of time and effort for
all involved.  Which doesn't speak very highly of the people not bothering
to do so, does it?  I make no apologies for the example--they exhibit
the symptoms, they get the diagnosis.  If it's unflattering, it's not my
fault, nor my problem.

But solving this won't happen so long as even a few people are enabling
the behaviour in #1, and letting those that do so get away with it.  That,
or it will work for the majority that stick to their guns, and those that
don't will bear the brunt of the abuse of their own overly good nature.

If we, as a group, stop even acknowledging and accepting incomplete,
incoherrent, and even worse, contradictory reports and questions on the
whole, people asking things in such a fashion might take a hint.  Perhaps
you're right--you don't need to be rude, you just need an infinite amount
of silence.  Then, when they wonder aloud why their questions have not been
met with answers, simply point to the big 144pt sign on the wall that has
the guidelines for reasonable reporting, and let it go at that--refusing to
answer until they comply with reasonable methods.

Some might argue this would make the list less of a resource.  I feel it
would have just the opposite effect.  We'd get more done with less time
and effort, and the rudeness (real or perceived) from #2 should disappear
pretty much completely, aside from a Cranky Day here or there, which anyone
has once in a while but could be excused as a rare aberration when the
behaviour wasn't triggered by constant iteration of #1.

The sad thing is--if #1 was being addressed properly, we wouldn't even
be having this discussion.  There'd have been nothing for me to even
contemplate saying in the first place the other day, no reaction to that
from you or others, and no further reaction from me.  It all started
because someone wasn't clued enough to give all the information--and
persistantly isn't--, and lest they feel singled out, is also amongst a
fair amount of equally non-clued company in not doing so.  Hence:  Snowball
effect.  I can hope for the opposite, but probably 5-10 people will chime
in to crucify me for daring to react to a lack of common sense from other
parties before this is all said and done.  All because there -was- a lack
of common sense to begin with--and it wasn't on my part.  Such is the
nature of such things.

So yeah, one can hope.  I know -I'm- tired of dealing with it.  Not only
dealing with it, but seeing others have to deal with it.  It's unreasonable
of the imposing parties.  If the purported "flamed" of the group would wise
up to the fact that they're creating their own problems (and problems for
others, which is still more rude), we'd probably be all set, IMHO.

All seems like Common Sense 101 to me.

Enough 'heavy' thinking.  It's the weekend, and I aim to enjoy what's left
of it, God willing.

Bests,

mark->