In comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc Peter Olcott <NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> You *could*, but guess what, you didn't. And you won't in the future,
>> either. Generally the same bunch of regulars read a large number of the
>> messages. Obviously I read both. It's *much* better to acknowledge the
>> previous thread and momentarily confuse the people who didn't read it
(as
>> if they'll be confused at all, they know what's what) than it is to
ignore
>> the previous thread and piss off everybody in the group.
>
> Why would anyone choose to be offended? With such a thing as this, it is
only a
> purely arbitrary convention that has no ultimate basis in reasoning. I
myself
> choose to never be offended, unless the specific intend to offend is
make 100%
> completely explicit. I often choose not to be offended in these cases
either.
> Why choose to be offended? Choosing to be offended reduces the quality
of one's
> life.
Let me see if I can put this in terms you'll understand, then.
By asking an underspecified question, and by repeating your question
without any acknowledgement of the previous try, you waste my time by
forcing me to remember who you are and by forcing me to decypher your
extremely badly worded question. Since I do this for free and for fun,
this means you don't get help.
However, I am trying to be a nice guy and tell you how you can avoid
causing the volunteers who might help you for free to decide that you
aren't worth their time. This doesn't seem to be working. Apparently you
believe that you know more about how to use newsgroups than I do, despite
the fact that I've been using them for a decade and you have apparently
been using them for a week, as far as I can tell from your behavior.
So here's where the offence comes in: if you don't like my advice, then
you can go get bent, join the other jerks in my kill file, and find some
other group to leech off of.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
|
