[UCLA-LUG] A ClueStick(TM)

[Dan Helfman]

ME TOO!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Frederick Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:10:53 -0700, said Luis <Luis@billingsupport.com>:
> >I'm very sorry to all the members, Eudora for some reason sent out double 
> >email's . I know how some members get upset about receiving the same email 
> >twice. So I'm very sorry once again.
> >
> >
> >Luis
> 
> 
> All right.  That does it.
> 
> Luis, you are seriously and dangerously short on clue.
> 
> I have tried being polite to you and hinting at what would be proper
> netiquette, but it appears your clueon flux is close to nil.
> 
> For the edification of others by the principle of "learn from the mistakes of
> others", I am making this public.
> 
> Your most grievous transgression is the inclusion of an ENTIRE post, or worse,
> and ENTIRE DAY'S DIGEST, to which your reply numbered within the handful of
> lines.  You failed to remove irrelevant *portions* of text.  Do note that the
> post to which you reply is being *quoted*.  As such, PLEASE remove the portions
> of text which has absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying.  If not
> for the sake of modem users, then, please, for the sake of thread continuity!
> It becomes disruptive to a thread when your post consists of an entire day's
> digest of which only 12 lines are relevant, and the other 200 still have to be
> drudged through because they were still included because you did not bother
> removing those lines.
> 
> It is not that difficult to delete unrelated lines of text.  See that mouse?
> In your reply post, highlight (you *DO* know how to highlight, right?) the
> unrelated text and hit Delete.  You know, that key on your keyboard labeled
> "Delete".  That's what I was trying to hint at, but apparently such very
> explicit steps were still too subtle for you.  
> 
> If you must require an enumeration of WHY deleting unrelated lines of text is
> important, I am more than willing to list them out.  It is a common practice
> of netiquette, and there are plenty of resources on that.
> 
> You may or may not know, but AOL (America OnLine) in general has a reputation
> for clueless people.  When AOL first let its subscribers loose on the Internet,
> there was a sudden explosion in the number of instances where a reply to a
> mailing list or a newsgroup consisted of anywhere from 20 to 2000 lines of
> quoted text, and a single line of "I agree", or "Me too", the much infamous
> me-too'ers.  This was, and is, horrendously rude.  If readers wanted to hold
> on the entire original post, they would have.  If they got rid of the entire
> original post, they did so for a reason.  Quoting the entire post verbatim
> and replying with a single line was forcefully stuffing the same thing down
> the readers throat that they already read, or did not want to keep.
> 
> A reply should contain enough of the original message to make it obvious what
> the context of the reply is.  There are people who receive upwards of 500
> pieces of e-mail per day.  Not only would having every single mailing post
> contain the entire original quoted verbatim cause much trouble with mailbox
> sizes, but these people do not have enough time to sift through 700 lines of
> text to figure out what someone is responding to.  There should be enough
> quoted material so that such a person would still know what the flow of
> conversation was even though a day or two has passed.  An entire day's digest
> is excessive.  A 1:300 ratio of reply to quoted is also excessive.  At the
> very least, strive to maintain a 1:1 ratio of lines of reply to lines of quote.
> 
> In plain English, try to have as many lines of reply as you have lines of
> quoted original.  Cut down on the quoted original post if you must, but please,
> don't pull a stunt like reply with 2 lines to a 300 line post that is fully
> included verbatim.
> 
> I have remained silent on this for a a very long while.  I figured you, Luis,
> would eventually learn.  I was hopeful you would learn from example, from the
> other posts on this list.  About snipping out, that is removing, irrelevant
> text in replies.  Was that not obvious enough in this amount of time?  There
> were more than enough instances of other people snipping irrelevant text that
> you should have learned by osmosis.  There was a reason for it being done!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your most recent post is an even worse transgression.  Not only is your Python
> question TOTALLY *UN*related to the original post's information on sound
> configuration, BUT THAT ORIGINAL POST WAS A MONTH AGO.  Please, explain the
> logic behind what you have pulled.  The original post you quoted is totally
> irrelevant, and it was post that is way old.  Why did you do that?  Is there
> something wrong with just sending a new fresh mail to the mailing list?  Were
> you somehow desperate to dig up this mailing list's e-mail address from your
> mail archives?  Has a mail virus randomly decimated your mail setup?  Or are
> you deliberately trying to be rude?
> 
> 
> Consider this a flame.  I have given you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps
> you were just making minor mistakes but still clueful.  I have tried being
> polite and subtle, but that didn't work.  I now find I must be direct, forward,
> rude, and in your face to get my point across.  You have been overtly rude as a
> netizen, and I feel it is time you change your ways in this respect.  If you
> require additional resources on proper netiquette, I will be more than happy to
> dig them up for you.
> 
> 
> If you still do not understand what I am saying, I fear for your abilities.
> PLEASE, REMOVE IRRELEVANT LINES YOUR REPLIES!  Otherwise, I will have to
> repeatly beat you with the ClueStick(TM) until you understand.
> 
> 
> -Fred
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UCLALUG Linux mailing list - Linux@linux.ucla.edu
> http://linux.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux

-- 
Dan Helfman
UCLA Linux Users Group: http://www.linux.ucla.edu
My GnuPG key: http://torsion.org/witten/public-key.txt