On Sunday 07 March 2004 8:45 am, James Ogley wrote:
And what rules does the list go by?? And who made those rules??
The rules have grown up over decades of use of email and usenet for discussions. The rules have been made, such as they are, by the hackers who have gone before us. And they were right.
Each to his own way of doing things is the only rule I can see... Life is too short to nit-pick every little thing.
Then you won't make many friends here. I'm quite an easy going guy, but I like politeness, and I like etiquette, because that way people demonstrate they value the community they are seeking to participate in. If were to join a Country Club (heaven forbid), the first I would do would not be to insist they change/abandon half of their rules because they didn't suit me. (The first thing I would do would be to order the driest martini the bar-tender could produce).
For me, this actually exposes very neatly an underlying social metaphor behind the whole top vs bottom posting argument. Essentially, there are those on this list who view it as a Country Club, who are insisting on imposing their rules on others and making out that it is unacceptable to top-post, that it is farting in an elevator, that it is passing the port the wrong way, that it is the route to social exclusion. In short, they are trying to exercise control over other people by insisting that the list belongs to the bottom posters. Logic tells me that bottom posting is preferable - not that I always follow it. But if it is necessary to explain the Logic year-in, year-out, that Logic cannot be strong enough. That too is Logic. Most people here, I would imagine, actually agree with the bottom posting logic. The difference is whether they are passionate about it. Hence our arguments about it are strange. Someone will say "top-posting is wrong" expecting to counter someone else saying "top-posting is right". But the dissent which arises is actually "griping about top-posting is wrong". We cannot talk about Majority and Minority here, It is More Vocal faction against Less Vocal faction, primarily because those of us who dislike the griping about top-posting tend towards neutral on the primary top-posting issue. I am far more upset about the bandwidth spent on trying to make people conform - and about doing this sharply without answering the question, than ever I would be about top-posting. In other words, I think that the Country Club are the ones passing the port the wrong way. Goodness me, people have ventured out of Windows, bought or downloaded a distribution, installed it and are trying to make it do their job. Just for getting that far, they have shown that they have some initiative, some individual value which will enhance us as a group. But a vocal minority sit here often holding the answer to their problem and say "we could answer your problem, but we won't until you conform to the rules of our Country Club". People will just say "join a Country Club? Heaven forbid. I'll just reformat and put XP back." I will be friends with people, regardless of whether they top-post or bottom post. It is not an issue to many beyond a vocal few. If a newbie comes with a problem, it means more to me [it serves my interests better] to see him go away with an answer and stick with Linux than to see him get a flea in his ear and go away with the idea that Linux is populated by crusty individuals who act up like an offended Country Club and who won't answer your question unless you pander to their offended egos. So I would ask the Country Club to disband itself in exchange for a new Rule which embodies their primary declared values of courtesy and ettiquette: "It is only permitted to rebuke someone for top-posting or thread-hijacking if you unconditionally make a sincere and courteous attempt to address the offender's point. You are otherwise permitted not to answer an offender and to gloat privately that you have withheld an answer as punishment. It is not permitted to extend that gloat either by off-list correspondence with the offender or by posting a gloat to the list, other than in statistical terms, which do not identify the original offender or the timespan more closely than one week. It is permitted to redirect an off topic poster to the OT list in courteous terms, provided you declare whether or not you are subscribed to that list" Vince