new style class

[Bruce Coram]

Steven

Regrettably I have to reply to your post because it misses the point of 
my initial post completely.  I suggested that Eric Raymond's advice 
provided cover for people who were rude, hostile or arrogant.  There are 
two obvious responses:  his advice does not provide such cover or it 
does but it does not matter.  It make no assertions about any particular 
person or group of persons.  It merely suggests that people who were 
disposed to rudeness could point to his article as supporting their 
approach.  It was a plea that we conduct ourselves in a civil manner and 
treat other people with respect.

I might be justified in assuming that you have spent some time working 
with politicians because you impute arguments to me that I do not make.  
At no point do I suggest that pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice 
is rude, hostile or arrogant, and your interpretation of my words to 
arrive at this is perverse.  It may be that English is not your first 
language in which case such a slip could be excused.  If not, it is 
evidence either of slipshod thinking or wilfull manipulation and 
obfuscation. If it is the latter then the post does not sit well in a 
forum that strives for accuracy.

Had I written:
The best response to those who *we assume* can not be bothered  to do 
the necessary work is either no reply or a simple "You would be  well 
advised to do some research before asking your question."

you would be justified in claiming that my advice was not to give any 
advice. I did not include the words 'we assume' and therefore my advice 
either to stop replying or to give a polite sign off was based on there 
being evidence that a person seeking advice could not be bothered i.e. 
there had been sufficient contact to allow that conclusion to be drawn 
in a reasonable manner.  English is a language that permits great 
precision in conveying meaning.  However, it is necessary on occasions 
to do some work and thinking in order to extract the writer's idea.

You also seem to have overlooked that I state twice that Eric Raymond's 
advice is good or very good.

I have no desire to to indulge in online verbal brawling but please take 
more care in drafting a reply, particularly in a situation where your 
interpretation of my post might lead others who post to believe that I 
thought them rude, hostile or arrogant.

Bruce Coram



Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:14:44 +0000, Bruce Coram wrote:
>
>   
>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>>   
>>>       
>> Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem
>> to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge
>> themselves at the expense of others.  While it is undoubtedly true that
>> there are people who post who should spend more time reading and
>> researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that  are rude,
>> hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance.
>>     
>
> Pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is neither rude, hostile or 
> arrogant. It may be brusque. It may fail to sugar-coat the message 
> sufficiently, and hurt some recipient's feelings, but that's their 
> problem, not that of the sender.
>
>
>   
>> Eric
>> Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid
>> providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or
>> both.
>>     
>
> Why don't you do so yourself? He solicits suggestions and revisions.
>
> Or ask for permission to fork the document and come up with your own. 
> (You have to ask first, because as far as I can see the document is not 
> released with an open licence.)
>
>
>   
>> If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an
>> intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or
>> enjoys being rude.  
>>     
>
> Dare I suggest that perhaps YOU should read smart-questions? In 
> particular, the bits where Raymond writes about RTFM:
>
> "You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent 
> is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You 
> should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness."
>
> Pointing somebody at smart-questions is a rather more polite form of RTFM.
>
>
>   
>> The best response to those who can not be bothered
>> to do the necessary work is either no reply 
>>     
>
> Ignoring people's request for help to punish them for poor behaviour is 
> not only rude but it is counter-productive. Not only do you not solve 
> their immediate problem, but you keep them in a state of ignorance as to 
> why they are being shunned -- thus guaranteeing that they will invariably 
> transgress again.
>
>
>   
>> or a simple "You would be
>> well advised to do some research before asking your question."
>>     
>
> Again leaving them no better off and still likely to transgress in the 
> future. How much is "some"? What sort of research? Asking on Usenet is 
> research isn't it? Why should I be expected to struggle with this on my 
> own when there are people out there who already know the answer?
>
> These are all reasonable thoughts that a poster might have. Then there 
> are the unreasonable thoughts, like the poster who once told me off for 
> asking for a traceback so we could see what his error was. He actually 
> took the time to write to me to abuse me for wasting *his* time, when I 
> could "just as easily" copy the code from his post, fix the broken 
> indentation and typos, save it to a file and run it myself.
>
> How do you expect people to learn better if we follow your advice?
>
>
>   
>> We do not need to make life any more difficult than it already is.
>>     
>
> Following your advise will make life worse.
>
>   
>> Civility costs nothing.
>>     
>
> Teaching people to ask appropriate questions is being civil.
>
>   
>> Eric Raymond's article, which offer's good advice, is
>> rather misguided in not only providing an excuse for poor behaviour but
>> almost actively encouraging it.  This is a pity since the essence of the
>> document is very good advice.
>>     
>
> Shame you haven't understood it, because your suggestions are 
> diametrically opposed to his message. Raymond's message is about teaching 
> people how to learn for themselves. Your message is to ignore their 
> request for help and let them keep floundering in the dark.
>
>
>
>