«

Richard Heathfield wrote:


> Most of the knowledgeable people in this newsgroup know who
> user923005 is. They know that it would be silly to killfile or
> ignore him. They know that, on the rare occasions that he asks for
> help, it's likely to be for extremely interesting reasons. (And yes,
> they also know that he ought to know better than to post a
> contextless reply.)


I can certainly make a guess, but I don't see any reason to give him a
pass from standard usenet etiquette. What if he decided next that
top-posting was the cat's meow?

I try to plonk consistently. If continues to post that way, especially
if he's obnoxious about it, then he'll certainly gain a deserved spot
in the old killfile.




Brian

Default User said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>
>> Most of the knowledgeable people in this newsgroup know who
>> user923005 is. They know that it would be silly to killfile or
>> ignore him. They know that, on the rare occasions that he asks for
>> help, it's likely to be for extremely interesting reasons. (And yes,
>> they also know that he ought to know better than to post a
>> contextless reply.)
>
>
> I can certainly make a guess, but I don't see any reason to give him a
> pass from standard usenet etiquette.

Neither do I. I suspect that he's just having a bad hair day.

> What if he decided next that top-posting was the cat's meow?

The amount of slack I give people tends to depend on their S/N ratio (signal
to noise, sense to nonsense, skill to nuisance, whatever fits). This tiny
increase in N from user923005 doesn't significantly reduce his S/N ratio,
but obviously top-posting would increase N still further, and eventually
there would come a point... but I don't think that point is now. YMMV, of
course.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

"Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Flash Gordon said:
>
>> user923005 wrote, On 31/01/07 19:14:
>>> P.S.
>>> For C, the algorithm still needs a typedef of int for e_type.
>>>
>>> P.P.S.
>>> If this message makes no sense to you, get a threading newsreader.
>>
>> That does not help if the message you are responding to never arrive, of
>> if it arrives some time after this message or if someone reads the
>> message after the response has expired, of if the news reader is set not
>> to show read messages and it is some time since they read the message
>> you are replying to.
>>
>> If that is not enough to encourage you to post properly then consider
>> than most of the knowledgeable people here are likely to either kill
>> file you or ignore you so you will find the group of no use when you
>> need help.
>
> Most of the knowledgeable people in this newsgroup know who user923005 is.
> They know that it would be silly to killfile or ignore him. They know
> that,
> on the rare occasions that he asks for help, it's likely to be for
> extremely interesting reasons. (And yes, they also know that he ought to
> know better than to post a contextless reply.)
Before he gets a disintegration ray, would he comment on how he came up with
the theoretical worst case performance in Figs. 13.7 and 13.8 without
handpicking "bad" initial sets? LS

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Default User said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Most of the knowledgeable people in this newsgroup know who
> >> user923005 is. They know that it would be silly to killfile or
> >> ignore him. They know that, on the rare occasions that he asks for
> >> help, it's likely to be for extremely interesting reasons. (And
> yes, >> they also know that he ought to know better than to post a
> >> contextless reply.)
> >
> >
> > I can certainly make a guess, but I don't see any reason to give
> > him a pass from standard usenet etiquette.
>
> Neither do I. I suspect that he's just having a bad hair day.
>
> > What if he decided next that top-posting was the cat's meow?
>
> The amount of slack I give people tends to depend on their S/N ratio
> (signal to noise, sense to nonsense, skill to nuisance, whatever
> fits). This tiny increase in N from user923005 doesn't significantly
> reduce his S/N ratio, but obviously top-posting would increase N
> still further, and eventually there would come a point... but I don't
> think that point is now. YMMV, of course.


I just can't agree with that sort of evaluation. I try to be as
consistent as I can, as I think "rules" such as they are in an
unmoderated group should apply as equally as possible. Allowing the
"regulars" to flout the rules that we hammer newbies about sends
exactly the wrong message, and gives fuel to the trolls who maintain
that that's the norm here.

The fact that someone has made useful contributions historically
doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. Some, I guess, maybe as you say,
let one bad day slide. However, if it's appearing to be a continuing
policy, then I'm not going to calculate some S/N ratio.



Brian

Default User said:

<snip>

> I just can't agree with that sort of evaluation. I try to be as
> consistent as I can, as I think "rules" such as they are in an
> unmoderated group should apply as equally as possible.

So do I. I cut *everybody* slack in proportion to their S/N ratio.

> Allowing the
> "regulars" to flout the rules that we hammer newbies about sends
> exactly the wrong message,

You're not *allowing* him to do anything. He can do what he likes, without
regard to your opinion or mine or anyone else's. The only control you have
is over *your* behaviour - your reaction to what he posts.

> and gives fuel to the trolls who maintain
> that that's the norm here.

Trolls don't need fuel. They just make stuff up.

>
> The fact that someone has made useful contributions historically
> doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. Some, I guess, maybe as you say,
> let one bad day slide. However, if it's appearing to be a continuing
> policy, then I'm not going to calculate some S/N ratio.

Well, neither am I. If someone posts a great many superb articles a day and
top-posts one or two from time to time, and forgets to quote context in
another handful, is it truly sensible to reprimand them for that? On the
other hand, if someone posts a handful of rather mediocre articles a day,
and top-posts in most of them, and fails to quote context in nearly all of
them, is it truly sensible *not* to?

At some point, you strike a balance. You don't need to dig out a pocket
calculator to know when someone "gets" it and when they don't.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.