Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen
by others
In article <lKGdnWijGeJ8VqHWnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk>, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.invalid> wrote:
tanix wrote:
My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
probably an order of magnitude better.
Tanix,
James has been providing useful replies on this group for at least three
years.
So what?
What does it have to do with ANYTHING, even remotely related
to the subject of this thread or even group for that matter?
:--}
Ok, since this is probably the last thing that I can do this year,
let us afford some luxury here...
You've managed a month,
Managed what?
And if I just stumbled upon this article via google groups for example
and decided to discuss it, does it somehow make me LESS valid?
:--}
Or, if I sit here for ten years, does it make me MORE valid?
Just the the sheer fact that you hang somewhere in limbo all your
life, does it make you MORE intelligent, more insightful?
Is this some kind of a club?
:--}
and the replies are not as useful.
What "replies" are not "usesuful"?
Useful to WHOM?
Useful for WHAT purpose?
If they are not "useful" to you, just don't read them.
Does someone FORCE you?
And THIS is the most "useful" "law" or "standard" of Usenet.
Usenet is not a political party gathering of like minded,
thinking along the same lines. Is this a surpise for you?
Why don't you wake up to the SIMPLIEST things in life?
Andy
Now, I'd like to discuss the issue of intellectual honesty.
You see, what you have done is to strip the ENTIRE context
and left a SINGLE statement. Why did you do that?
One more time: VAST majority of article views happen via web,
where all that people see is a single article, just like you see
it via google. You do not even have a thread to look at.
And distorting things THIS bad, you MUST be utterly intellectually
dishonest. And that is the reason I said that this ugly trip of
stripping is mostly used by people who have the worst intentions
possible and that is to distort and pervert the information and
try to make white look like black and vise versa.
And I stand by every single statement of mine.
If you wish to bring it up and respond to in, fine be my guest,
even though I am not obliged to even bother about it.
If you think differently, so be it. It is not MY life. It is yours.
Interestingly enough, this is a language group where people
are expected to have above average degree of intelligence
since their minds are much more sophisticated then most others
as they have to deal with issues of logic and all softs of
most complex things every day of their lives.
Strange to see the kind of argument you are making.
Not even clear what IS the very argument?
Just plain stinky guilt manipulation trip?
If you think THIS kind of argument, such as using the "standard"
buzzword, like it was a word of God, just to instill guilt
in others, is something even appropriate, too bad.
First of all RFC are NOT "standards".
They literally mean Request For Comment or Clarification.
Do you understand?
They are NOT ANY kind of "standard".
Yes, when there is some real RFC, where a group a people worked
for years on some technical system and designed something that
works and reconciles, that is a different matter.
The other people simply decide to go with it and it becomes
a "standard" by implication.
But to have THIS kind of obsenity and to even conceive of an
idea to use it as some kind of argument, trying to make someone
GUILTY of something, that is not only ugly, not only
PROFOUNDLY dishonest, but is simply rotten to the bone and marrow.
Simply DISGUSTING.
With THESE kinds of "standards", what do you expect to see next?
A list of words, acceptable in terms of netti-fetti-betty?
The name of the streets you are allowed to walk on?
Do you understand the BASIC human rights, as signed by VAST
majority of countries in the world?
Do you understand what means BASIC?
And RIGHTS, and not some luxury for the pure blooded.
There is such a right as freedom of expression.
Do you understand?
It does not say "you have freedom of expression" if you sit
on some group for more than 3 years and you do NOT have
such freedom if you are there for onoy a month.
Do I have to chew things like THESE to the software developers,
and not only software developers but LANGUAGE developers?
:--}
This is simply pathetic, I tellya.
What kind of language you can possibly design if your mind
works like this? What kind of issues you can possibly discuss
with THIS kind of guilt manipulation procedures, trying to
discredit someone or invalidate his opinion on the basis
that someone has wasted years on this group?
And here is what the post you were following up looked like
before you mutilated it to the point of obsene:
===== Quote begin =====
In article
<4a6b5487-5f11-4845-8335-d46653060270@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, James
Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Dec, 04:21, ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
In article <20091229152640....@gmail.com>, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2009-12-24, tanix <ta...@mongo.net> wrote:
So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
article intact. No not delete some section of the article
you are following upon because you think it is
"insignificant" in YOUR opinion.
In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
article as much as possible.
Just the other way around.
Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure
you summarize the original at the top of the message, or
include just enough text of the original to give a context.
It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
official standard.
I would expect THIS kind of response from you, personally.
I think your brain functions much better than this.
Ok, lemme spend a couple of minutes on this.
You see, "official standard" can ONLY be applied to technical
issues, not the posting style or personal preferences.
Those are CONTENT issues.
You can not "standartize" the content issues.
So, to me, personally, if some fools start writing THESE kinds
of things into standards, then those very standards have little,
if not less, significance.
It is like a programmer deciding to dictate others how to do
business or diplomacy.
Simply does not make sense.
Secondly, things like these, even if written into standards,
only mean an agreement between the members of the "board".
I wonder if Russ Allbery signed under THIS kinds of standard.
I have my doubts he would. But... You never know, you never know.
I'll do you a favor and check this paper.
Wow!
NETIQUETTE STANDARD?
:--}
Have they gone totally insane to produce THIS kind of garbage?
And who wrote this?
Sally Hambridge
Intel Corporation
2880 Northwestern Parkway
SC3-15
Santa Clara, CA 95052
Phone: 408-765-2931
Fax: 408-765-3679
EMail: sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com
INTEL writing THESE kinds of guidelines?
:--}
This is not even a joke. This is PATHETIC.
And this so called standard was written by a SINGLE individual,
who apparently is dumb enough even to CONCEIVE such a thing.
This is the biggest disgrace in the entire history of Usenet.
:--}
Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
distort the material and present it as something else.
That happens, but it's pretty rare. And most of the time, it's
obvious when it happens.
Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.
A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
threads.
Not true.
Apparently, you don't understand Usenet, or are confusing it
with some other medium.
My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
probably an order of magnitude better.
Are you getting bored out of your head and there is nothing MORE
exciting than getting into things like these?
:--}
===== Quote end =====
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
http://preciseinfo.org
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.