Re: List intolerance VS advocacy

["Robert Schwartz" <robert@mrsquirrel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] 
> On Behalf Of Welraeds, Grégoire
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:14 AM
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: List intolerance VS advocacy
[...]
> > For example:
> > NOT A FLAME
> > I can't get OpenBSD to install, what should I do?
> > RTFM!
> > Example 1 isn't a flame,
> 
> IMO, it is. My answer would be something like:
> "Please read the Netiquette policy at 
> http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html before > posting such 
> questions to the list."

That certainly is more polite.  I agree %100.  However I'm not certain
that the message is any different even though the verbage is.  Either
way they're not handheld and apronstrung but pointed to a better
starting place.  I apologize for not explaining in the example that
RTFM! messages are almost always accompanied by a link to the F'in M.
When it is just RTFM! without that link then you are right, it is a
flame since the poster might not know where the manual is.  My example
was incomplete.  Basically, if you're going to take the time to respond
negatively, then you are obligated to post a link to the faq :)

However, the tone the link is delivered in is totally up to the
responder.  End of debate period forever.  Don't tell me how to express
myself: you can always delete a message you don't like!  People here are
usually (this thread notwithstanding) very terse.  Other people confuse
that with rudeness.  That's their fault not the fault of some
(nonexistent!) cult of rudeness at misc@.  This whole thread started
from a stealth flame.  Calling misc@ rude is a complete flame, misc@ is
full of people helping other people for free.  Now someone has the gall
to call that rude?  Unreal.  I'm going back to techie stuff, this
etiquette crap hurts my head.