> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Presumably you are happy with the idea of EVERYONE compromising to
>> some extent in order to get as close to something that most are happy
>> with as possible ? :-)

> I don't know until I see what the compromises are, but I don't think that=
's
> possible.

:-)

> I do think this is not something you can do half way.
> Either you allow straight talk and the higher technical content that come=
s with it, or you
> don't.

I, of course :-) [tm] , disagree with such an extreme interpretation.

I understand from your prior explanations and your prior approaches that

- "straight talk" is your code for your using language (words and
style) that may reasonably be expected to cause affront to a
reasonably large proportion of recipients, especially newcomers who
are not aware of your approach and

- that this is language that you say is reasonable and

- that if they are upset with the approach then THEY have a problem and

- that potentially "causing affront" is part of the intention, as
those who respond in this way are demonstrating their unworthiness.

I think that that's an honest representation of your position.
Do please correct any point(s) that are incorrect.

I have no problem with straight talk.
I can't even spell Kafee Klach and can only guess (probably correctly)
at what it means.

I say (of course [tm] etc) that "straight talk" does not HAVE to mean
"using language that may well cause personal affront to some people in
order to achieve the desired affect". This may be an occasional (!)
result, but need not and should not be the expected norm or even very
common when "correction" seems indicated.

I'd agree wholeheartedly that experience shows that in most things in
life the optimum point is not in the middle of the range. But I also
find that it's seldom the point where the needle is pinned hard
against the stop, which seems to be what you consistently advocate.

Having "higher technical content" can be achieved without having
newcomers being compelled to either bow the knee to the greatness of
the list worthies or leave.

Despite people repeatedly having built straw men to the contrary:
=A0 =A0I don't wish to encourage laziness.
=A0 =A0I don't wish to encourage sloppy questions
=A0 =A0I don't wish to encourage rudeness (by newcomers)
=A0 =A0I wish newcomers to be required to meet the same standards as others

The difference is, when / if newcomers fall short of objectives I
believe that it is appropriate to simultaneously provide both polite
(but possibly firm) corrective guidance AND at least some information
to assist them. This
- points them in the right direction (which may BE reading the fine
manual (possibly metaphorically) , (but you haven't quite put it that
way)
- and they have received eg the name or address of the manual or the
number of the index page

> The How to Ask Questions article is a distillation of years of
> experience and presumably some give and take and compromises. =A0It is
> referenced often on various lists and groups. =A0A wussy half in half out
> approach will just as likely serve neither end.

I absolutely agree. I would never advocate a wussy half in half out approac=
h.
Before replying to further posts of mine on this subject please Read
My Fine Replies (is RMFR an accepted acronym?) on the subject and
understand what I am really saying.
:-).
Now. Was that really useful?

Would you have understood it any less if I'd said something like
"I certainly have never suggested a 'wussy half in half out approach'
- although you frequently misrepresent me as having done so. Please
have another look at my previous relevant replies to see that this is
in fact the case".
?

Sure, that didn't do more than give you an occasional minor bump as
the putative RMF... meaning occurred but it didn't annoy you (I
think).

BUT an RTFM there from an *apparently* arrogant apparently egotistical
apparently (and actually? :-) ) rude stranger whose worth they do not
know is just as inflationary there as if a newcomer drops in and
starts RTFMing you - as has happened - and you were indeed
unimpressed. YOU think that they should respect YOUR position as a
member of merit.

BUT a point that may never have occurred to you - they have no way of
telling that you ARE a member of merit. No way of knowing that you
deserve the respect that you, literally, demand. You may just as well
be only the list bully come for another cheap victory over a so far
disoriented newcomer. And they act appropriately, as they see it.

> You can have a list with straight talk and high technical content, or you
> can have a list that becomes a glorified Kaffe Klatsch with ever so polite
> content free niceties. =A0Pick one.

No. Maybe that's the world you feel compelled to live in. Your choice.
But eg airliner and spacecraft cockpits, combat crews under fire that
survive many missions and teams of any sort that depend on their
members for split second timings and tight cooperation, often enough
don't have to resort to abuse and invective for results.

And, are you implying (or better) that the conversations that I have
with people who ask questions never has "high technical content"? :-)

I've always been amused and impressed by the oh so proper olde world
politeness of the airline pilot's "Go around power, Please"*. That may
well have all capitals in terms of its importance and urgency - but
it's still uttered in "the right stuff" calm in the face of death**.
Even 1/4 of that reserve when giving newcomers a chance to get
established would make =A0a world of difference.


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Russell

* Translation" Get us out of here NOW!. And fast !!!.
** Flight 901, 00:49:52. Last words of Captain Jim Collins. 3 seconds to li=
ve.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.super70s.com/super70s/tech/aviation/=
disasters/79-11-28(NewZealand).asp
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.nzterritory.com/disasters/erebus.html

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist