l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
L U G O D
 
Next Meeting:
September 2: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
TBD
Latest News:
Aug. 18: Discounts to "Velocity" in NY; come to tonight's "Photography" talk
Page last updated:
2004 Jan 02 14:36

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox] Self-replying [Was "XFree86 Core Team Disbands" (?)]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox] Self-replying [Was "XFree86 Core Team Disbands" (?)]



on Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:51:42AM -0800, Jeff Newmiller (jdnewmil@dcn.davis.ca.us) wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim Riley wrote:
> 
> > ME wrote:
> > 
> > > Look! My (lack of) nettiquette is showing:
> > > (replying to myself)
> > 
> > Why is adding an additional thought after pressing the <send>
> > button bad nettiquette?
> 
> I can think of two reasons off the top of my head:
> 
> a) pushing the send button too quick is something to be frowned upon... it
> suggests that you do not respect your readers' time spent interpreting
> your thoughts.  Specifically, having to thread two messages together to
> identify a complete thought may not always be possible, since related
> messages may not always be presented together.
> 
> b) if your audience is so uninterested in your topic that there is no one
> else to reply to after your message, then perhaps you shouldn't be talking
> to yourself on that topic in that forum.
> 
> I don't think either of these sufficient justification to condemn someone
> for replying to themselves once in awhile, but I do think they at least
> suggest that doing so should be a rare event.

I've engaged in the practice myself on occasions when working through a
technical problem for which it appears there's no recorded solution
and/or nobody on channel with useful advice.  In which case, I'll detail
the problem, initially, provide additional context, if this seems
appropriate, and if I _do_ find a solution, post this.  On the basis
that comprehensive indices such as Google turn the Internet into my
filing cabinet.

I've received several comments over the years thanking me for particular
solutions posted in this way.  One that comes to mind was a problem in
which my video card (S3 ViRGE VX) locked on any subsequent invocation of
X (either serial or parallel), and the fix was to *not* use the
recommended video driver.  Lonely set of comments out on
comp.os.linux.x, which was still getting unsolicited thanks years later.

    http://tinyurl.com/2topx

...if anyone's interested ;-)


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    The black hat community is drooling over the possibility of a secure
    execution environment that would allow applications to run in a
    secure area which cannot be attached to via debuggers.
    - Jason Spence, on Palladium aka NGCSB aka "Trusted Computing"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature



LinkedIn
LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
facebook
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
EDGE Tech Corp.
For donating some give-aways for our meetings.