On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 09:09 AM, Charlie Summers wrote:
> At 10:52 AM -0500 2/24/03, Rich Kulawiec wasted our time with:
>
>> I asked nicely three times -- twice at the bottom of messages, then
>> once at the top. That did not appear to be working, hence an explicit
>> request.
You know, I was going to let this drop, since I didn't want to turn it
into an argument, but since it is anyway, I'll chime in.
Rich can ask. he can't demand. Since philosophically I'm strongly
against the request he made, I ignore it. Just because he asks for it
doesn't mean he gets it, and since I'm in control of my email client
(not him), all he can do is ask. And asking in ever louder and more
frustrated voices doesn't help him get what he wants, something he
should realize by now (at least with me... grin)
That is why I suggested the PROPER way to do this is to fix it on his
own local system, since he does have control of it. If you want your
email some specific way, set up your system to present it that way.
Don't whine at everyone else to change their lives to your convenience
-- fix your computer.
Not only is that more effective, because your computer HAS to listen to
you and I don't, it's a lot lower on the frustration level, because as
rich has to remember from the early days of USENET, educating users
DOESN'T FRICKING WORK because every time you educate one, two more pop
up who are new and even less capable of understanding why they need to
be educated, much less care about what you think. So this "do it my
way" strategy is guaranteed to fail anyway, and by trying, you're
wasting your own time and energy, and raising your blood pressure at
the same time. That's a stupid way to handle something.
Find a way to solve it, not complain about it. And that means doing it
using things you CAN control, and that doesn't include the users around
you.
> directly into the list charter. (Aside to _others_ on the list: Are
> lists
> formally chartered anymore? I'm not talking about list guidelines, I
> mean the
> formal USENET-like charter we crafted years and years ago.)
mine are. although some days I wonder why, or if it matters...
> Forgive me, but I tend to get a little annoyed when someone tells
> me how I
> MUST do something simply because they aren't smart enough to write a
> procmail
> filter to eliminate duplicate copies. I (like Mr. Von Rospach) prefer
> to be
> copied directly on list posts to me,
here's why, by the way. I filter all of my list mail to folders, which
I can read in my free time, so it doesn't get in the way of my "real"
e-mail. If I'm in a conversation (like this one), I WANT a private
copy, because it flags to me that a conversation I'm in needs to be
looked at. That keeps the threads I'm involved in directly moving
forward on a timely basis, without requiring me to plow through all of
my list mail wondering if a discussion I'm involved in needs my
attention. That's good for the list (IMHO) because it keeps discussions
from going stale for six hours and then picking up again.
But if someone doesn't send me a private copy, I don't yell at them.
Things might slow down a bit, but the world won't end, either.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an
opinion
something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the
mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble.
IMHO.
(source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms).
References:
|
|
