Stylesheets?
David Rasmussen
features, is there a way to just "plug in" some package or something,
that will change the appearance (fonts, layout etc.) of my document to
some other style than the "default LaTeX style"?
/David
Rafal K.
Font styles
\textrm{...} sets font like Times New Roman (but better ;) )
\textsf{...} sans serif
\texttt{...}
\textbf{...} bold
\textit{...} italic
\emph{...} distinguishing feature (italic font mostly)
\textnormal{...} default font
Font size:
\tiny
\scriptsize
\footnotesize
\small
\normalsize
\large
\Large
\LARGE
{\huge ........}
{\Huge ......}
For text align I use flush enviroment for example:
\begin{flushright}
\includegraphics{ResizePhoto.png}
\end{flushright}
I hope that it will help ;)
David Rasmussen
> Well, LaTeX has got something like text formatting for example:
>
> Font styles
> \textrm{...} sets font like Times New Roman (but better ;) )
> \textsf{...} sans serif
> \texttt{...}
> \textbf{...} bold
> \textit{...} italic
> \emph{...} distinguishing feature (italic font mostly)
> \textnormal{...} default font
>
*snip*
But I am not talking about formatting commands within LaTeX. I am
talking about changing as little as possible in my original document,
preferably just adding a line loading a package or something like that,
and *voila*, my documents looks different. Just like cascading style
sheets and XHTML. There, I can just load another style sheet, without
altering anything else, and everything looks different.
/David
Rafal K.
Ok. Now It clear.
You have to create your own documentclass where You could predefine all
LaTeX functions.
David Rasmussen
But doesn't such alternative documentclasses exists already, for free use?
/David
Donald Arseneau
David Rasmussen
>
> Yes.
>
Gee, how clever. I feel all stupid now. Would you care to tell me where
and how etc. ?
/David
Guy Worthington
Live the dream! (I love that phrase).
LaTeX2e was conceived to live the dream with a simple interface for
switching all the characteristics of fonts, including font families,
font sizes and font weights. It's very powerful, the only draw back
being it's not such a simple interface. So in reality, until you're
Walter Schmidt you're limited in your choices of fonts.
For instance, if you don't like the default computer modern font,
you can either go for:
1) a more formal, scholarly look, with more information packed on
the page, and the page looking darker
or
2) a more informal, less threating look with the page on the whole
looking brighter
Unless you're a font freak, or need to go with a high-tech
ultra-modern look (in which case you'll have to google for a
sans-serif font), that will cover most documents, from scholarly
(mathptmx) to old-fashioned (cmr) to a very nice general purpose look
(mathpazo). Since you can do much worse than Walter Schmidt as an
arbiter of taste, I'll finish my drivel with his template for using
mathpazo (part of the documentation for PSNFSS):
%--------------------------------------------------
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{mathpazo}
\linespread{1.05} % Palatino needs more leading
\usepackage[scaled]{helvet}
\usepackage{courier}
\normalfont
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\begin{document}
....
%--------------------------------------------------
By the way, if you a font freak, then a viable option, is to switch
to the much simpler plain-TeX.
Juergen Fenn
>> You have to create your own documentclass where You could predefine
>> all LaTeX functions.
>>
> But doesn't such alternative documentclasses exists already, for
> free use?
ftp://ftp.dante.de/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/bytopic.html#classes
There are no stylesheets in LaTeX2e. However, there are some global
switches for creating a different layout. You will get a completely
different layout if you are using the KOMA-Script classes as compared
to the default classes, for instance. This does the same job as
stylesheets in HTML, and XML.
Juergen.
Rowland McDonnell
You might try the KOMA-script bundle - plug-in replacements for the
standard LaTeX classes which do look noticably different in many
excellent ways.
If you want something other - well, the easiest thing to do really is to
write your own class - *based on an existing class*. It's actually not
at all hard once you've got the hang of the basics; clsguide.tex is a
good place to start reading.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
PGP pub key 0x62DCCA78 Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
Donald Arseneau
Skipping the obvious terse answer ("No")...
CTAN, and also from some publishers' web sites.
Some packages and document classes introduce extra commands and
options (because they aren't covered in the default document
classes) but you can often avoid those parts.
You won't get more information until you give more. Like
some clue as to what you are looking for, as opposed to
just "different".
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
David Rasmussen
>
> You won't get more information until you give more. Like
> some clue as to what you are looking for, as opposed to
> just "different".
>
I thought maybe that there was some collection of these styles
somewhere, where one could se a sample before choosing a style.
I want to write my thesis in LaTeX (I am a rank LaTeX beginner), but I
would like it have a little more "structure" than the default classes.
It is difficult for me to explain exactly what I want, because I don't
know. What I do know, is that I would like to have a choice.
/David
Philipp Lehman
> I want to write my thesis in LaTeX (I am a rank LaTeX beginner), but
> I would like it have a little more "structure" than the default
> classes.
What kind of structure? I'm not sure what you're getting at...
> It is difficult for me to explain exactly what I want,
> because I don't know. What I do know, is that I would like to have a
> choice.
Refering to an example of yours, Latex is not really comparable to
XHTML+CSS. There are some implicit standards for classes, but they're
less strict and not formalized to the same extend. That is, most
classes and packages adhere to the markup elements of the default
classes (as well as some internal structures relevant for 'hooking
in') but this is not a technical requirement.
Suppose you have a simple document using the book class and you open a
chapter by typing \chapter{this is a chapter}. Later on it strikes
you that the default layout is in fact rather ugly and that you'd
prefer a different style. What are your options?
1) Switch to a different document class which will produce a different
(hard-coded) layout by default.
2) Load a package that redefines the chapter formating macros of the
standard classes and use that to redefine the chapter style.
3) Switch to a flexible document class which features configurable
chapter styles. Then use the built-in facilities of the class to
adjust the chapter style.
All these options are global in the sense that you put your changes in
the document preamble without having to alter the document body.
2) and 3) are not 'plug-ins' in the sense that you load something
and... woop! you have a different layout. It rather works like this:
you load a new package or switch to a class with an extended feature
set. The class/package provides additional commands which you may
then use to redefine what the standard markup does.
To make a long story short, here's an advise: if you're just getting
started with Latex and with a thesis and you're not sure what kind of
layout you will prefer in the end, go with a flexible document class
right from the start.
There are two serious options in this area: memoirc.cls and
scrbook.cls (part of a package called "koma-script"). Both are very
flexible (I believe memoir even more so) and both are extensively
documented. I suggest you look at the manuals of both packages. This
will give you an idea what you can change and how you do that with
Latex.
--
Philipp Lehman <leh...@gmx.net>
Jesper Thomsen
Maybe you are thinking about something along the lines of the
fancychap package. Adding the line below to your preamble will change
the way your chapter headings look without any fuss or additional
work.
\usepackage[Sonny]{fncychap}
Instead of 'Sonny' you can choose the options 'Lenny', 'Glenn',
'Conny', 'Rejne', and 'Bjarne'. I think there are a few other packages
like that, but most layout changing packages require editing the
textinput. However, should you find any easily implented style change
packages, I'd be happy to know.
Note that the fancychap package may clash with for instance the
tocbibind package, if you use that.
With a little more effort you could convert your TEX file to the
memoir class. Said class has tried to make it easier to switch between
certain page and chapter styles. Furthermore, it is fairly easy to
create your own styles.
For example, adding \chapterstyle{companion} and \pagestyle{companion}
to your preamble (with memoir as the document class) will format your
chapter headings and your headers and footers to match the layout of
The LaTeX Companion.
Of course, as others have already mentioned, changing the font of your
document can improve the general layout.
Best regards,
Jesper Thomsen
Christopher Rath
> But I am not talking about formatting commands within LaTeX. I am
> talking about changing as little as possible in my original document,
> preferably just adding a line loading a package or something like
> that, and *voila*, my documents looks different. Just like cascading
> style sheets and XHTML. There, I can just load another style sheet,
> without altering anything else, and everything looks different.
Once your document is marked-up with LaTeX commands, there are a
variety of packages in the CTAN archive which each make small changes
to the resultant output. LaTeX does assume that it will mostly work
with 3 fonts---one serif font, one sans serif, and a fixed-pitch
font---and so "easy" font changes swap out these three font sets.
For font changes only, there are a set of .sty files which make those
changes. For example, times.sty changes out the Computer Modern fonts
for Adobe's standard Times Roman, Helvetica, Courier set. Keep in
mind that using times.sty only makes sense where you are going to
print on a postscript printer.
Once you've downloaded times.sty and taken a look at it, you'll
discover that it's a very small file and that you are easily able to
create your own font changes using times.sty as a template.
For making bigger changes, like how lists appear or how chapters
start, you have to begin to learn more about LaTeX. I found the best
way to start was to read Leslie Lamport's LaTeX manual along with
Groossens, Mittlebach, & Smarin's "The LaTeX Companion".
Others in this thread have suggested the KONA package, and although I
haven't used that particular one I do suggest that you look in the
CTAN catalogue (already referenced by others). Many others have gone
before you and written packages to make LaTeX produce prettier output.
One of those will probably give you the flexibility you're looking
for.
Sincerely,
Christopher
David Magda
[...]
> I want to write my thesis in LaTeX (I am a rank LaTeX beginner),
> but I would like it have a little more "structure" than the default
> classes. It is difficult for me to explain exactly what I want,
> because I don't know. What I do know, is that I would like to have
> a choice.
I wrote up my undergrad thesis (in EE) using LaTeX. I was already
knowledgeable in it so that's one difference. I did introduce it to a
couple of people and one was very happy with it (I don't know about
the others, didn't ask).
A word of advice: although it's cool that you want to play around
with LaTeX and learn more, FINISH YOUR THESIS FIRST! I don't which
field you're in, but a thesis quite often takes longer than you
inteded (Finagle's/Murphy's Law and all that).
First type it up in the default style, and once it's done, then fool
around with the look. One thing I hate with MS Word is that it's very
easy to get sidetracked with the look-and-feel. The table of contents
alone has caused me grief numerous times.
I like LaTeX because I open up Emacs, type, spell-check and then
check the (default style) output. Once everything is done do I worry
about space, placement, etc.
Of course, if you're confident you can resist the call of
procrastinatin then by all means, play around with things.
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
Michele Dondi
<david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> You won't get more information until you give more. Like
>> some clue as to what you are looking for, as opposed to
>> just "different".
>
>I thought maybe that there was some collection of these styles
>somewhere, where one could se a sample before choosing a style.
>
>I want to write my thesis in LaTeX (I am a rank LaTeX beginner), but I
>would like it have a little more "structure" than the default classes.
If you want more "structure", then you could go the/some xml way.
Again, I *think* you'll have to design the translation yourself: at
least this is what I saw some friends of mine do (no direct experience
myself).
I don't *think* you'll get a bunch of ready made stylesheets that you
can just "plug in and see how it comes out"!
Michele
--
>It's because the universe was programmed in C++.
No, no, it was programmed in Forth. See Genesis 1:12:
"And the earth brought Forth ..."
- Robert Israel on sci.math, thread "Why numbers?"
David Rasmussen
>
> A word of advice: although it's cool that you want to play around
> with LaTeX and learn more, FINISH YOUR THESIS FIRST! I don't which
> field you're in, but a thesis quite often takes longer than you
> inteded (Finagle's/Murphy's Law and all that).
>
> First type it up in the default style, and once it's done, then fool
> around with the look.
That's exactly what I want to do. I just want to be sure _before_ I
write it, that I can change the layout afterwards, without problems.
That was partly why I asked the way I did.
/David
Dan Luecking
You change the argument of \documentclass. For example, if now you have
\documentclass[...]{report}
you might change that to
\documentclass[...]{amsrep}
or
\documentclass[...]{revtex4}
The 4DOS command dir /s texmf\tex\latex\*.cls gives me a list of 137
possibilities. A majority of those are unsuitable as they are designed
for slides or letters or memos or vitas, etc., But a large number still
remain (I count 31 that have some variant of the words "book", "thesis"
or "report" in the filename). Unfortunately they all seem to accept
different options (the [...] parts in the examples above), and many
define new commands not usable in others.
Dan
--
Dan Luecking Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
luecking at uark dot edu
David Magda
> That's exactly what I want to do. I just want to be sure _before_ I
> write it, that I can change the layout afterwards, without
> problems. That was partly why I asked the way I did.
Even if you stick with the default 'style', your thesis will quite
good. Especially compared to the output of Word. I went through past
thesises (sp?) when researching mine and most looked quite bad.
I also recommend that on the final print out use a good quality laser
(not an ink jet!) and good paper. If you want *really* good quality
paper (archival) get cotton paper.
David Rasmussen
>
> Even if you stick with the default 'style', your thesis will quite
> good.
Yes. And I don't want to change the style too much. I just want
1) different look of chapter and section headings, maybe something sans
serif.
2) maybe a different look of the main text, maybe sans serif too?
I don't really know. I will have to experiment. It seems that scrbook
from komascript will do this.
But I guess it isn't too hard to redefine the looks of chapter and
section headings, and of the main text? I know next to nothing about
LaTeX though, so I wouldn't know how to.
> Especially compared to the output of Word. I went through past
> thesises (sp?) when researching mine and most looked quite bad.
>
I think 'thesis' in plural is 'theses'.
> I also recommend that on the final print out use a good quality laser
> (not an ink jet!) and good paper. If you want *really* good quality
> paper (archival) get cotton paper.
>
Okay.
/David
David Kastrup
> David Magda wrote:
> > Even if you stick with the default 'style', your thesis will quite
> > good.
>
> Yes. And I don't want to change the style too much. I just want
> 1) different look of chapter and section headings, maybe something
> sans serif.
> 2) maybe a different look of the main text, maybe sans serif too?
>
> I don't really know. I will have to experiment. It seems that scrbook
> from komascript will do this.
>
> But I guess it isn't too hard to redefine the looks of chapter and
> section headings, and of the main text? I know next to nothing about
> LaTeX though, so I wouldn't know how to.
scrguien.dvi exists.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
David Rasmussen
>
> scrguien.dvi exists.
>
Can't argue with that :)
It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300 pages
of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use.
/David
David Kastrup
It has a good table of contents and an index. Instead of using them
you are willing to pester hundreds of people with questions that are
readily and accurately answered in detail in the obvious places in a
manual.
Since you say yourself that you are so unlike to even make use of any
answers you get here that you won't bother investing any time in it
yourself, I will follow your example and won't waste my time any more
with you.
David Rasmussen
>
> It has a good table of contents and an index. Instead of using them
> you are willing to pester hundreds of people with questions that are
> readily and accurately answered in detail in the obvious places in a
> manual.
>
I am not pestering anybody, I am asking questions on usenet. That's what
usenet is for. If you don't like it, tough. Have fun elsewhere.
> Since you say yourself that you are so unlike to even make use of any
> answers you get here
I haven't said that anywhere. Do you have some sort of condition?
> that you won't bother investing any time in it
> yourself, I will follow your example and won't waste my time any more
> with you.
>
A wise choice, since you're not helping me, and you're wasting your own
time.
/David
Jesper Harder
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> It has a good table of contents and an index. Instead of using them
>> you are willing to pester hundreds of people with questions that are
>> readily and accurately answered in detail in the obvious places in a
>> manual.
>
> I am not pestering anybody, I am asking questions on usenet. That's
> what usenet is for.
No it isn't.
Do yourself a favour and learn how not to behave like a luser by
reading "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way":
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
(findes også på dansk: http://usenet.dk/netikette/udvdebatteknik.html)
David Kastrup
I find the line "I am not pestering anybody, I am asking questions on
usenet. That's what usenet is for." a classic.
It's like "I am not talking to you, I am just opening and closing my
mouth while standing close to you. That's what a mouth is for."
Where is the purpose in asking questions if you don't expect anybody
to go to the trouble of answering them? Well, I made sure that I
won't be the one to inadvertantly disturb the magical answering
properties of Usenet itself in this case. Still, it's cute.
David Rasmussen
>
> No it isn't.
>
Yes it is.
And please don't teach me about usenet...
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> I find the line "I am not pestering anybody, I am asking questions on
> usenet. That's what usenet is for." a classic.
>
Well, I guess you must have experienced such answers many times, with
your attitude.
> It's like "I am not talking to you, I am just opening and closing my
> mouth while standing close to you. That's what a mouth is for."
>
Ehm, no it's nothing like that in fact.
> Where is the purpose in asking questions if you don't expect anybody
> to go to the trouble of answering them?
I don't know, I don't know anybody who asks question with that
expectation. Fortunately, a lot of good and knowledgable people have
given answers my questions.
> Well, I made sure that I
> won't be the one to inadvertantly disturb the magical answering
> properties of Usenet itself in this case. Still, it's cute.
>
Still, it would be nice if you would post something valuable instead of
just polluting the group with garbage like this. What's the purpose?
/David
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > I find the line "I am not pestering anybody, I am asking questions
> > on usenet. That's what usenet is for." a classic.
>
> Well, I guess you must have experienced such answers many times,
> with your attitude.
Google Groups would answer your guesses.
> > It's like "I am not talking to you, I am just opening and closing
> > my mouth while standing close to you. That's what a mouth is
> > for."
>
> Ehm, no it's nothing like that in fact.
If you say so, it must be true.
> > Where is the purpose in asking questions if you don't expect
> > anybody to go to the trouble of answering them?
>
> I don't know, I don't know anybody who asks question with that
> expectation. Fortunately, a lot of good and knowledgable people have
> given answers my questions.
Whereas a bad and unknowledgeable person like myself has pointed out
to you that the information can be found in the manual, and the name
of the manual. Whereupon you claimed that the information was not
important enough for you to look up, but that it was important enough
for you to prospectively let hundreds of other people look it up for
you.
> > Well, I made sure that I won't be the one to inadvertantly disturb
> > the magical answering properties of Usenet itself in this case.
> > Still, it's cute.
>
> Still, it would be nice if you would post something valuable instead
> of just polluting the group with garbage like this. What's the
> purpose?
Teaching how to find information. The process is easy when you look
things up in a manual, and I told you where to look it up. You
scorned me for it, preferring to have others do the work for you. And
now I tell that your way of accessing other's knowledge is not prone
to be successful for long, as it shows open disrespect to your source
of information.
Now a book will not complain and become unavailable for future queries
when you show it disrespect, except when you burn it or let it swim
too long in coffee. The same does not hold true for people.
That you, as a self-acclaimed Usenet aficionado, have not yet mastered
this basic concept, is a bit pitiful. Usenet consists of people, and
their time is not less valuable than yours. If this appears
differently to you, it nevertheless would be smart not to let this
show.
David Rasmussen
>
> If you say so, it must be true.
>
I guess you're being sarcastic here. How about being a little
constructive instead? I could have answered your original "it's like
..." claim with "if you say so...", also. It would have been very
constructive, wouldn't it?
>>
>>I don't know, I don't know anybody who asks question with that
>>expectation. Fortunately, a lot of good and knowledgable people have
>>given answers my questions.
>
> Whereas a bad and unknowledgeable person like myself has pointed out
You must be very insecure. Have I called you unknowledgable and bad?
_You_ are the one attacking, not I.
> to you that the information can be found in the manual, and the name
> of the manual. Whereupon you claimed that the information was not
> important enough for you to look up, but that it was important enough
> for you to prospectively let hundreds of other people look it up for
> you.
>
Just keep putting words in my mouth and twisting my intends. It makes
you look very credible. Is this a game to you?
>
> Teaching how to find information. The process is easy when you look
> things up in a manual, and I told you where to look it up. You
> scorned me for it, preferring to have others do the work for you.
>
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but there are many good reasons for
asking knowledgable people questions instead of browsing thick manuals.
It happens all the time on usenet, you know. And people are happy with
that state of affairs. I do not (and I think you know, but you want to
play games) want people to look things up in the manual for me. But has
it occured to you that maybe somebody already knew the answer to my
questions, and could answer readily?
> Now a book will not complain and become unavailable for future queries
> when you show it disrespect, except when you burn it or let it swim
> too long in coffee. The same does not hold true for people.
>
True. Though I am beginning to get tired of your disrespect and your
games. If people want to answer my questions (and many seem to), please
let them! If you don't want to, please don't, but stop wasting bandwidth
and my time and your own.
> That you, as a self-acclaimed Usenet aficionado,
Putting words in my mouth, twisting my intend, playing games again?
> have not yet mastered
> this basic concept, is a bit pitiful. Usenet consists of people, and
> their time is not less valuable than yours. If this appears
> differently to you, it nevertheless would be smart not to let this
> show.
>
It is very simple: I asked relevant questions, a lot of people gladly
answered, as do I everyday on usenet when people ask questions I know
the answer to. If you have a problem answering, then don't. Don't attack
me or any of the people that answered my questions.
/David
Jon Ericson
> I shouldn't have to tell you this, but there are many good reasons
> for asking knowledgable people questions instead of browsing thick
> manuals.
*After* you have read the manual, there are good reasons for asking
knowledgeable people questions. What do you think is the point of
having manuals in the first place?
> It happens all the time on usenet, you know. And people are happy
> with that state of affairs.
No they aren't--at least not all of them. It is incredibly
frustrating to read or participate in a technical group in which the
same sets of questions, problems and issues are addressed over and
over again because people don't want to be bothered *reading*
anything. That's why most technical groups have FAQs (which are
ignored by a slightly smaller set of people then those who ignore the
manual).
> I do not (and I think you know, but you want to play games) want
> people to look things up in the manual for me. But has it occured to
> you that maybe somebody already knew the answer to my questions, and
> could answer readily?
Systems such as TeX and LaTeX are complicated and require lots of
documentation to be usable--even for experts. When you have a
question, it's a two step process to find an answer for yourself in
the documentation: 1) find the right document and 2) look up the
answer. When you ask on Usenet, it's a many-step process involving
many people. You post a question, people misunderstand it, you
clarify, people give bad answers, other people correct them, people
disagree about the right answer, someone top-posts, flames erupt,
etc.
I think that it's ok to ask questions that are answered in the
documentation. For one thing, it's often hard to find the right place
to look. For another, the documentation is sometimes incomplete,
wrong or poorly worded. Sometimes Usenet is the very best place to
solve problems.
But there is something terribly wrong and remarkably arrogant about
bothering hundreds of people simply because you are too lazy to skim a
manual for yourself. Don't kid yourself: you are bothering people.
Every person who responds to you is taking time away from something
else. It is, in a small way perhaps, a sacrifice for your benefit.
It is not unreasonable to expect you to do some work on your own
behalf.
Perhaps you are used to less technical groups where people are more
chatty. If so, you should take some time to understand the culture of
*this* group.
Jon
--
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for
yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my
household, we will serve the LORD.
-- Joshua 24:15 (NIV)
David Rasmussen
>
> *After* you have read the manual, there are good reasons for asking
> knowledgeable people questions. What do you think is the point of
> having manuals in the first place?
>
I don't agree with you. In many many cases, it is much faster to ask
experienced people that are happy to answer, for help. Not all manuals
are well-suited for finding simple answers to simple questions. Sad but
true. People that don't want to answer, just don't. If you have the time
to write long meta-posts about how I should ask questions and how others
should answer them, maybe you do have time to answer the questions
themselves after all. If not, don't.
>
> No they aren't--at least not all of them.
Yes they are, or they wouldn't answer.
> It is incredibly
> frustrating to read or participate in a technical group in which the
> same sets of questions, problems and issues are addressed over and
> over again because people don't want to be bothered *reading*
> anything.
Now you're just inventing stuff. Not very credible.
> That's why most technical groups have FAQs (which are
> ignored by a slightly smaller set of people then those who ignore the
> manual).
>
Okay, please point me to the place in any FAQ that answers my question
in this case?
>
> Systems such as TeX and LaTeX are complicated and require lots of
> documentation to be usable--even for experts. When you have a
> question, it's a two step process to find an answer for yourself in
> the documentation: 1) find the right document and 2) look up the
> answer. When you ask on Usenet, it's a many-step process involving
> many people. You post a question, people misunderstand it, you
> clarify, people give bad answers, other people correct them, people
> disagree about the right answer, someone top-posts, flames erupt,
> etc.
>
Your point being?
> I think that it's ok to ask questions that are answered in the
> documentation. For one thing, it's often hard to find the right place
> to look. For another, the documentation is sometimes incomplete,
> wrong or poorly worded. Sometimes Usenet is the very best place to
> solve problems.
>
Exactly!
> But there is something terribly wrong and remarkably arrogant about
> bothering hundreds of people simply because you are too lazy to skim a
> manual for yourself.
Inventing again I see. And credibility dropping steadily...
> Don't kid yourself: you are bothering people.
No I'm not. I am reading and posting on and off in many technical
newsgroups, and believe me, asking questions is a very normal thing to
do, and fortunately a lot of good people are willing to help. I am not
doubting that two or three people are bothered in here, but you can't
please everybody. Some people will do almost anything to start a fight
or a metadiscussion.
> Every person who responds to you is taking time away from something
> else.
If they don't want to answer, they don't. It goes for me too.
> It is, in a small way perhaps, a sacrifice for your benefit.
> It is not unreasonable to expect you to do some work on your own
> behalf.
>
Not at all. And I haven't said otherwise.
> Perhaps you are used to less technical groups where people are more
> chatty. If so, you should take some time to understand the culture of
> *this* group.
>
No, I am in fact used to posting in many technical groups. This group
doesn't seem different, in fact, with exception of a few people. I have
been getting a lot of nice answers in here, and I am thankful. Just like
with every other group. Often, I answer questions myself, and when I get
knowledgable enough about LaTeX/TeX, I will answer all the questions I
can and have time for. I certainly won't attack people out of the blue
for asking questions, and waste my time on that.
/David
Michele Dondi
<david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Don't kid yourself: you are bothering people.
>
>No I'm not. I am reading and posting on and off in many technical
>newsgroups, and believe me, asking questions is a very normal thing to
>do, and fortunately a lot of good people are willing to help. I am not
And in fact you have admittedly received a bunch of good answers.
*Including* the one given to you by David Kastrup who is, by the way,
one of the most valuable contributors to this NG. And please notice
that I don't say so because he is somehow an established authority: to
me *he* is not much more than a name. A name, though, that I have seen
on quite a lot of helpful advices freely and generously given to any
kind of people from newbies to more experienced users (and FWIW a name
"attached" to interesting and precious projects in the world of
TeX/LaTeX). Your answer was definitely unpolite and unrespectful. You
were explained *why* it was unpolite and unrespectful. *You* started
and you are *continuing* what you call a "metadiscussion" by refusing
to understand why you have been answered like that, on the basis that
you've behaved similarly on other NGs and nobody complained. But every
NG is a world of itself: the "regulars" there more or less explicitly
establish the rules to attain an effective exchange of know-how. You
*can't* come in and say: "No, I'm using *my* rules"; nay, you can, but
then do not expect that they will all agree! As a side note, the above
mentioned rules are generally quite flexible: as far as David Kastrup
is concerned, I must admit he's sometimes rough on the "help me to
help you" side, if you know what I mean. This does not make him less
willing to help you. Quite the contrary, I'd say...
>doubting that two or three people are bothered in here, but you can't
>please everybody. Some people will do almost anything to start a fight
>or a metadiscussion.
This is your conclusion. It may well be that "some people will do
almost anything to start a fight", but this claim does not apply to
anybody here, as of my experience, now some years old.
>No, I am in fact used to posting in many technical groups. This group
>doesn't seem different, in fact, with exception of a few people. I have
>been getting a lot of nice answers in here, and I am thankful. Just like
>with every other group. Often, I answer questions myself, and when I get
>knowledgable enough about LaTeX/TeX, I will answer all the questions I
>can and have time for. I certainly won't attack people out of the blue
>for asking questions, and waste my time on that.
The last point may be acceptable. It's a choice of yours! The only
comment I can add is that as of my experience here and elsewere in
most such cases (*very* *very* rare here, BTW)people "wasting their
time on that" are not doing that for some sort of perverted
self-satisfaction (as your words *seem* to suggest, at least IMHO),
but to avoid wasting their time in the future. Or to let the people to
whom the message is destinated that they do *not* want to waste their
time answering them if they just want a "quick answer" instead of
learning more *whenever* they judge (in most cases, *correctly*) that
some level of learning would be required anyway, which seems to apply
to your case.
FWIW, I don't consider you a complete crank, as probably most other
people here have understood, so I'm "wasting my time" to explain you
my/our point instead of plonking you. Please consider that!
Jon Ericson
> Jon Ericson wrote:
>> *After* you have read the manual, there are good reasons for asking
>> knowledgeable people questions. What do you think is the point of
>> having manuals in the first place?
>
> I don't agree with you. In many many cases, it is much faster to ask
> experienced people that are happy to answer, for help. Not all manuals
> are well-suited for finding simple answers to simple questions. Sad
> but true.
Certainly *some* manuals are poorly written. But that is neither an
excuse nor an answer to my question.
> People that don't want to answer, just don't. If you have the time
> to write long meta-posts about how I should ask questions and how
> others should answer them, maybe you do have time to answer the
> questions themselves after all. If not, don't.
It isn't *my* time that is important--it's the total time of the
hundreds of readers of this group and the time of the core of experts
which is important.
[On whether or not people are happy answering questions answered in
the documentation.]
>> No they aren't--at least not all of them.
>
> Yes they are, or they wouldn't answer.
There are many reasons why a person might answer questions. Pity for
instance.
>> It is incredibly frustrating to read or participate in a technical
>> group in which the same sets of questions, problems and issues are
>> addressed over and over again because people don't want to be
>> bothered *reading* anything.
>
> Now you're just inventing stuff. Not very credible.
What am I making up? I'm not sure why you think my credibility is at
issue here. I'm not making any arguments from my own authority for
instance.
>> That's why most technical groups have FAQs (which are ignored by a
>> slightly smaller set of people then those who ignore the manual).
>
> Okay, please point me to the place in any FAQ that answers my
> question in this case?
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=findpkg
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=secthead
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=replstdcls
>> Systems such as TeX and LaTeX are complicated and require lots of
>> documentation to be usable--even for experts. When you have a
>> question, it's a two step process to find an answer for yourself in
>> the documentation: 1) find the right document and 2) look up the
>> answer. When you ask on Usenet, it's a many-step process involving
>> many people. You post a question, people misunderstand it, you
>> clarify, people give bad answers, other people correct them, people
>> disagree about the right answer, someone top-posts, flames erupt,
>> etc.
>
> Your point being?
That you personal convenience is only one factor in the decision of
whether or not you should post a question. Stop being dense.
>> But there is something terribly wrong and remarkably arrogant about
>> bothering hundreds of people simply because you are too lazy to skim a
>> manual for yourself.
>
> Inventing again I see. And credibility dropping steadily...
Care to elaborate? The sequence of events was, someone pointed to a
piece of documentation and you whined that it was too long.
>> Don't kid yourself: you are bothering people.
>
> No I'm not.
There exist at least two counter-examples.
> I am reading and posting on and off in many technical newsgroups,
> and believe me, asking questions is a very normal thing to do, and
> fortunately a lot of good people are willing to help.
Asking (even before reading the relevant documentation) isn't the
problem. The problem comes when someone points out that your
questions are answered in a document and you refuse to read it.
Something for you to ponder: Where are the people who support your
assertion that you can can ask any question you want here?
David Rasmussen
>
> And in fact you have admittedly received a bunch of good answers.
> *Including* the one given to you by David Kastrup who is, by the way,
> one of the most valuable contributors to this NG.
I know that, and I have never said otherwise. I am grateful for the
answers that he and others have given. What I will not stand for,
however, is him attacking me out of the blue. It is the only reason for
my response.
> And please notice
> that I don't say so because he is somehow an established authority: to
> me *he* is not much more than a name. A name, though, that I have seen
> on quite a lot of helpful advices freely and generously given to any
> kind of people from newbies to more experienced users (and FWIW a name
> "attached" to interesting and precious projects in the world of
> TeX/LaTeX).
I am sure he is. That doesn't give him the right to behave this way. At
least not in my world.
> Your answer was definitely unpolite and unrespectful.
Where?
> You
> were explained *why* it was unpolite and unrespectful.
No?
> *You* started
> and you are *continuing* what you call a "metadiscussion"
No, I'm sorry, but I didn't. Why would I?
> by refusing
> to understand why you have been answered like that, on the basis that
> you've behaved similarly on other NGs and nobody complained. But every
> NG is a world of itself: the "regulars" there more or less explicitly
> establish the rules to attain an effective exchange of know-how. You
> *can't* come in and say: "No, I'm using *my* rules";
I am not. I am saying that it is a perfectly normal thing, _in this
group_, to ask questions and getting answers; even questions that maybe
in principle can be looked up in manuals or found out otherwise. It
happens everyday in this group. And of course it does.
> nay, you can, but
> then do not expect that they will all agree! As a side note, the above
> mentioned rules are generally quite flexible: as far as David Kastrup
> is concerned, I must admit he's sometimes rough on the "help me to
> help you" side, if you know what I mean. This does not make him less
> willing to help you. Quite the contrary, I'd say...
>
I don't quite understand what you mean here, but David Kastrup has
certainly answered some questions for me, if I remember correctly. That
was nice of him. What was not nice of him, was behaving the way he has
in this thread. Regulars or no regulars, rules or no rules,
group-specific idioms or not, I am not going to take insults out of the
blue. I try to treat my fellow man as I want to be treated myself. I
expect nothing less from him.
>
> This is your conclusion. It may well be that "some people will do
> almost anything to start a fight", but this claim does not apply to
> anybody here, as of my experience, now some years old.
>
Maybe it doesn't in general, but it applies to some people in this
thread. Tell me, with a straight face, that you think the tone in this
thread is ok? It is not, by me, nor will it ever be. Sorry.
>
> The last point may be acceptable. It's a choice of yours! The only
> comment I can add is that as of my experience here and elsewere in
> most such cases (*very* *very* rare here, BTW)people "wasting their
> time on that" are not doing that for some sort of perverted
> self-satisfaction (as your words *seem* to suggest, at least IMHO),
> but to avoid wasting their time in the future.
And that gives them right to become hostile and twist words etc. ? How?
And also, what do you mean by wasting time in the future? They wouldn't
waste any time if the just didn't respond. Nobody forces them to answer.
Of course I can understand that if someone starts spamming the group or
something like that, that people will respond. But I was just asking a
question. Where is David Kastrup's harsh reply to all the other
questions asked daily in this group, that in theory can be looked up
elsewhere? Is the group only for asking questions that only this group
can answer? If the answer can, somehow, be found elsewhere, it shouldn't
be asked here?
> Or to let the people to
> whom the message is destinated that they do *not* want to waste their
> time answering them if they just want a "quick answer" instead of
> learning more *whenever* they judge (in most cases, *correctly*) that
> some level of learning would be required anyway, which seems to apply
> to your case.
>
I don't quite understand this paragraph.
But there is no doubt at all, that I need to learn a lot more LaTeX. And
I am reading about LaTeX everyday, trying out things etc. So I am
getting better at least :)
> FWIW, I don't consider you a complete crank, as probably most other
> people here have understood, so I'm "wasting my time" to explain you
> my/our point instead of plonking you. Please consider that!
>
I don't care if you or anyone else "plonk" me. It's their problem. But I
am glad that you will explain your view to me in a calm and
non-offensive manner. But why wouldn't you?
/David
David Rasmussen
>
>>Jon Ericson wrote:
>>
>>>*After* you have read the manual, there are good reasons for asking
>>>knowledgeable people questions. What do you think is the point of
>>>having manuals in the first place?
>>
>>I don't agree with you. In many many cases, it is much faster to ask
>>experienced people that are happy to answer, for help. Not all manuals
>>are well-suited for finding simple answers to simple questions. Sad
>>but true.
>
>
> Certainly *some* manuals are poorly written.
It's not necessarily about the manuals being poorly written.
Manuals aren't always the best way to solve any problem. I think you
know that.
> But that is neither an
> excuse nor an answer to my question.
>
I don't have anything to excuse. But I forgot to answer your question,
which I thought was rethorical. What are manuals for? Manuals are mostly
for two things, in my experience:
1) To read through and through to get a better understanding of a subject.
2) To look up specific topics in the index, and reading a concise
description of the topic. These are often called reference manuals. They
are mostly used to clarify details, and require a good understanding in
the first place.
I could ask you some counter questions:
Why do you think tutorials exists?
Why do you think several books exists on a topic where there already
exists a manual?
Why do you think newsgroups exist?
There are different ways to solve different problems given a topic.
Manuals are not the most suited solution for every problem. Tutorials,
books, seminars, classes, newsgroups, primers etc. all exists for a reason.
In this case, I was having a fine time with David Magda telling me what
he had done with his thesis. David Kastrup enters, and tells me to read
the manual for Komascript. I tell him that I don't think that is an
appropriate solution for the problem I am having, at this stage. This is
my honest opinion. That doesn't mean that I will not read it at some
point. It just means that I think, refering to the above categories,
that I need(ed) something like a Komascript _tutorial_ or _primer_. If
people asked me or in a newsgroup, if they should use C++, not knowing
it beforehand, for a certain problem, I wouldn't refer them to the
manual of their C++ compiler, or the ISO document describing C++, or
even Bjarne Stroustrups book on the subject. I would probably explain my
take on the problem, and maybe refer him to some short material that
could maybe answer his question.
I am not saying anything bad about David Kastrup because he didn't do
this (I don't even know if it's possible). I just maintain that my
question and my reasons are very understandable, plain and reasonable,
and there is no need to start attacking me.
>
> It isn't *my* time that is important--it's the total time of the
> hundreds of readers of this group and the time of the core of experts
> which is important.
>
They can just refrain from answering. Nobody forces them to read or
answer all messages. My question was perfectly on-topic and reasonable.
And all the people giving useful answers before David Kastrup began
attacking me, didn't seem to mind. They were happy to answer, and I was
happy to get the answers.
>
> There are many reasons why a person might answer questions. Pity for
> instance.
>
How insightful and constructive...
>
>>>It is incredibly frustrating to read or participate in a technical
>>>group in which the same sets of questions, problems and issues are
>>>addressed over and over again because people don't want to be
>>>bothered *reading* anything.
>>
>>Now you're just inventing stuff. Not very credible.
>
> What am I making up?
You're suggesting that I "don't want to be bothered *reading* anything",
which has nothing to do with reality. And I think you know.
> I'm not sure why you think my credibility is at
> issue here.
It is with me, when you're saying things like that, that can't be
serious. Or do you expect me to take it serious? And the above remark
about pity, that was your best too? I think you can do better than that.
I think you're not being serious.
> I'm not making any arguments from my own authority for
> instance.
>
I don't understand that sentence, sorry.
>
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=findpkg
I am aware of this excellent FAQ.
This specific link tells me how to find packages. Have I asked about
that in this thread? Does it answer the question about Komascript that
this thread is about? Or are you mixing threads now?
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=secthead
This has nothing to do with Komascript, has it? But it contains some
excellent points, though.
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=replstdcls
>
This is along the lines of the thread, and I have read this answer in
the FAQ.
>>
>>Your point being?
>
> That you personal convenience is only one factor in the decision of
> whether or not you should post a question. Stop being dense.
>
I am not dense. I think you were unclear, sorry.
Of course my personal convenience is not the only factor in the
decision. Stop twisting my motives and intends.
>
>>>But there is something terribly wrong and remarkably arrogant about
>>>bothering hundreds of people simply because you are too lazy to skim a
>>>manual for yourself.
>>
>>Inventing again I see. And credibility dropping steadily...
>
> Care to elaborate?
Of course. You say that I am too lazy to skim a manual. That's not true,
and I think you know it. You probably also know that it is not a very
constructive thing to say. What is the purpose? Does it make us all or
any of the two of us, any wiser?
> The sequence of events was, someone pointed to a
> piece of documentation and you whined that it was too long.
>
No. You're doing it again...
>
> There exist at least two counter-examples.
>
Then it must be true.
There exists 20 or so counter-counter-examples :) People have gladly
answered.
>
> Asking (even before reading the relevant documentation) isn't the
> problem. The problem comes when someone points out that your
> questions are answered in a document and you refuse to read it.
>
My questions _aren't_ answered in any document. You don't seem to
understand what kind of answer I am looking for, or to understand the
purpose of and difference between a manual and all other sources of
information.
> Something for you to ponder: Where are the people who support your
> assertion that you can can ask any question you want here?
>
Where have I asserted that? I wouldn't think it very appropriate to ask
a question about opera in here for example. Although as far as I can
tell from reading this group, there is about as much good-natured
off-topic chattering in here, as in any other technical newsgroup. That
is fine with me.
I have, however, asserted that I can answer (almost) any TeX related
question here. And I have gotten fine answers for every question I have
posted so far. If people don't find a question worth answering, they
don't. If they start attacking me personally after asking perfectly
reasonable questions or making reasonable points, I react. I'm a
reasonable man, but I can't help reacting in that case. I don't think
that's unreasonable. And you will have a hard time convincing me
otherwise, sorry.
/David
William F. Adams
>Asking (even before reading the relevant documentation) isn't the
>problem. The problem comes when someone points out that your
>questions are answered in a document and you refuse to read it.
Every time I come across a thread like this, I am again tempted to make a New
Year's Resolution to ignore all questions which do not include a statement of
what efforts and research the querent has made, save possibly to point them at
the FAQ.
David, please do everyone a favour and read RFC 1855 and give it some thought,
'kay?
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
William
--
William Adams
http://members.aol.com/willadams
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
David Rasmussen
>
> David, please do everyone a favour and read RFC 1855 and give it some thought,
> 'kay?
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
No, not okay. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think I need to read
anything about "netiquette". In fact, I think that several people in
this thread could benefit from reading it but it's their own decision.
I have answered many questions on many newsgroups, and I would never
answer in any of the offensive and arrogant tones used in this thread.
And when people do it to me, I react. I think it is perfectly
reasonable, and most of the reasonable people I know, would do so too.
You will have a very hard time convincing me that my questions were not
reasonable and that the harsh reactions from (only a few) people here,
were reasonable.
I would never behave that way, nor would I expect anybody else too.
/David
Jon Ericson
> Michele Dondi wrote:
>> *You* started and you are *continuing* what you call a
>> "metadiscussion"
>
> No, I'm sorry, but I didn't. Why would I?
You're doing it right now!
>> by refusing to understand why you have been answered like that, on
>> the basis that you've behaved similarly on other NGs and nobody
>> complained. But every NG is a world of itself: the "regulars" there
>> more or less explicitly establish the rules to attain an effective
>> exchange of know-how. You *can't* come in and say: "No, I'm using
>> *my* rules";
>
> I am not. I am saying that it is a perfectly normal thing, _in this
> group_, to ask questions and getting answers; even questions that
> maybe in principle can be looked up in manuals or found out
> otherwise. It happens everyday in this group. And of course it does.
No. You still don't understand the problem.
If I understand your position, you say that it's better for you to ask
a question than to look through documentation. This is likely to be
true because, as you say, people have so far been willing to answer
you. The only cost to you is that some people might ignore you. From
your perspective, there is little to lose and lots to gain.
But this is an example of the "Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons"[1].
This group is unmoderated, so no one can prevent you from asking any
sort of question you like. (Yes, that includes opera questions. :)
And no one can prevent other people from answering any way they
choose. (Including with false and misleading answers.)
If you look at this group, you notice that there are a number of very
knowledgeable people that answer all sorts of questions. That is a
valuable and somewhat rare resource. It is also fragile because, as
you point out, no one is forced to answer questions here. My guess is
that most people who answer questions here, do so because they find
the questions interesting. I also guess that most people don't find
questions that can be answered from a manual very interesting.
The whole point of this "metadiscussion" is that you are being
destructive. Reading back up the thread I see that you actually told
David Kastrup to go elsewhere. Thank goodness he chose to ignore
you. Imagine what would happen if everyone who came here for help
refused to follow the advice that was given to them.
Jon
Footnotes:
[1] See http://dieoff.com/page95.htm
Jon Ericson
> Jon Ericson wrote:
>>
[On the proposition that since people answered questions, they must
have been happy to answer them.]
>> There are many reasons why a person might answer questions. Pity
>> for instance.
>
> How insightful and constructive...
I wasn't trying to attack you. There are many, many reasons to answer
questions. Don't assume that people enjoy doing the things they do
simply because the doing is optional.
>> I'm not sure why you think my credibility is at issue here.
>
> It is with me, when you're saying things like that, that can't be
> serious. Or do you expect me to take it serious? And the above remark
> about pity, that was your best too? I think you can do better than
> that. I think you're not being serious.
I am serious. Whether or not you actually read something is
irrelevant if you publicly announce that you can't be bothered.
>> I'm not making any arguments from my own authority for instance.
>
> I don't understand that sentence, sorry.
My credibility *would* be an issue if the crux of my argument is that
I am an authority so you should listen to me.
>> Asking (even before reading the relevant documentation) isn't the
>> problem. The problem comes when someone points out that your
>> questions are answered in a document and you refuse to read it.
>
> My questions _aren't_ answered in any document.
How can you possibly know that?
David Rasmussen
>>
>>No, I'm sorry, but I didn't. Why would I?
>
> You're doing it right now!
>
Continuing the discussion? Yes, sorry, you're right. But I didn't start
it, I have no reason to. And as I wrote, I am not going to not react to
insults and accusations. So in that sense I _am_ continuing the discussion.
>>
>>I am not. I am saying that it is a perfectly normal thing, _in this
>>group_, to ask questions and getting answers; even questions that
>>maybe in principle can be looked up in manuals or found out
>>otherwise. It happens everyday in this group. And of course it does.
>
>
> No. You still don't understand the problem.
>
I'm sorry, but I think I do.
> If I understand your position, you say that it's better for you to ask
> a question than to look through documentation.
That's a very onesided way of putting it. I am saying that for the
particular question that I asked, in the particular state of learning
that I was in, it was a very reasonable, normal and also successful
thing, to ask my question in a newsgroup like this, especially since
equivalent questions are being asked here and in all other techninal
newsgroup that I know of, and is being answered happily and competently,
not least by people like David Kastrup. And myself for that matter.
That doesn't mean that I am not spending a lot of my time everyday
reading documentation.
> This is likely to be
> true because, as you say, people have so far been willing to answer
> you. The only cost to you is that some people might ignore you. From
> your perspective, there is little to lose and lots to gain.
>
The same could be said of 99% of the people asking questions in every
newsgroup, including this. Stop trying to question my motives.
>
> If you look at this group, you notice that there are a number of very
> knowledgeable people that answer all sorts of questions.
True. Fortunatey, that goes for most technical newsgroups or newsgroups
in general.
> That is a
> valuable and somewhat rare resource. It is also fragile because, as
> you point out, no one is forced to answer questions here. My guess is
> that most people who answer questions here, do so because they find
> the questions interesting. I also guess that most people don't find
> questions that can be answered from a manual very interesting.
>
All the questions answered in here, are answered in a manual.
> The whole point of this "metadiscussion" is that you are being
> destructive.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
> Reading back up the thread I see that you actually told
> David Kastrup to go elsewhere.
You have a terrible habit of twisting words and putting motives in
people's minds that aren't there. I didn't tell David Kastrup to go
elsewhere. I told him, after being attacked, that what I was doing was
perfectly normal _in this group_, and in any other newsgroup I know of,
and that if he didn't like the state of affairs, he would have to find
someplace else. I don't doubt that he is very knowledgeable and a
valuable resource and regular to this group. But you are not going to
see me take unwarranted insults and accusations from anybody, without a
reaction from me. It is a matter of treating your fellow man in a fair
manner. I am myself a regular not without knowledge, in certain groups.
And I would never ever talk like this to anybody.
> Thank goodness he chose to ignore
> you. Imagine what would happen if everyone who came here for help
> refused to follow the advice that was given to them.
>
Imagine what would happen if everybody that came here or anywhere else,
and was insulted groundlessly, didn't react. I don't care who you are,
you treat people fairly. Or you get a reaction. It is very simple.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> I wasn't trying to attack you.
Then you probably should have chosen some other words :)
There are many, many reasons to answer
> questions. Don't assume that people enjoy doing the things they do
> simply because the doing is optional.
>
That is of course true in a remote and philosophical way. I am talking
about the very concrete and practical reality of this newsgroup and most
others:
People ask questions. Questions that can always be looked up elsewhere.
They get answered, or they don't. Please don't act like you don't
understand this, and please don't attack me for doing what all others
do. I don't see you responding in this manner to the 100+ questions of
similar nature that was posted to the group after mine.
>
> I am serious. Whether or not you actually read something is
> irrelevant if you publicly announce that you can't be bothered.
>
But nobody did that. You're doing it again...
>
> My credibility *would* be an issue if the crux of my argument is that
> I am an authority so you should listen to me.
>
Oh. Maybe so. I think it is not very credible when you twist my words
and motives and you pretend not to understand even the most basic and
obvious realities of this and other newsgroups. I think you know better.
You seem like a smart person (to me).
>
> How can you possibly know that?
>
I'm sorry, I can't. And in a sense, as I've said myself, my questions
(and all others)_are_ of course answered elsewhere (hopefully). Maybe I
should have said: the kind of _answer_ I was looking for, was not
available anywhere else.
/David
Brent W Lievers
Is the above not equivalent to saying:
"I refuse to consider how others think I should behave in this
newsgroup, yet I think others should behave the way I want in
this newsgroup."
Brent
David Rasmussen
>
> Is the above not equivalent to saying:
>
> "I refuse to consider how others think I should behave in this
> newsgroup, yet I think others should behave the way I want in
> this newsgroup."
>
No. It means that I refuse to accept arrogance and unwarranted hostility
from anybody, anywhere, be it usenet or in real life. Be reasonable, and
you'll get a reasonable response.
You are right in one sense, though:
I will not behave like this: taking unreasonable arrogance and insults,
without reacting.
And I do think that _certain_ others should behave the way I want: Don't
be arrogant and attacking.
If you think those two points are unreasonable, I guess we can just
agree to disagree on how people should treat each other and behave.
/David
Jesper Harder
> No. It means that I refuse to accept arrogance and unwarranted
> hostility from anybody, anywhere, be it usenet or in real life. Be
> reasonable, and you'll get a reasonable response.
Oh, boy. This is really a textbook case of loser behaviour. First
refusing to RTFM, and now whining about how unfairly you're being
treated. Get over it.
You really do need to read the reference I gave you earlier -- here's
an excerpt:
,----
| Remember: When that hacker tells you that you've screwed up, and (no
| matter how gruffly) tells you not to do it again, he's acting out of
| concern for (1) you and (2) his community. It would be much easier for
| him to ignore you and filter you out of his life. If you can't manage
| to be grateful, at least have a little dignity, don't whine, and don't
| expect to be treated like a fragile doll just because you're a
| newcomer with a theatrically hypersensitive soul and delusions of
| entitlement.
`----
Doesn't that sound familiar?
David Kastrup
> Brent W Lievers wrote:
> > Is the above not equivalent to saying:
> > "I refuse to consider how others think I should behave in this
> > newsgroup, yet I think others should behave the way I want in
> > this newsgroup."
> >
>
> No. It means that I refuse to accept arrogance and unwarranted
> hostility from anybody, anywhere, be it usenet or in real life.
It certainly would seem that you need no alms in that area.
David Rasmussen
>
> Oh, boy. This is really a textbook case of loser behaviour. First
> refusing to RTFM, and now whining about how unfairly you're being
> treated. Get over it.
>
I am not whining about anything. I am responding to posts concerning my
person. Whenever people stop posting bullshit, I will stop responding to
bullshit. Why would you expect otherwise? It is really very simple.
> You really do need to read the reference I gave you earlier -- here's
> an excerpt:
>
> ,----
> | Remember: When that hacker tells you that you've screwed up, and (no
> | matter how gruffly) tells you not to do it again, he's acting out of
> | concern for (1) you and (2) his community. It would be much easier for
> | him to ignore you and filter you out of his life. If you can't manage
> | to be grateful, at least have a little dignity, don't whine, and don't
> | expect to be treated like a fragile doll just because you're a
> | newcomer with a theatrically hypersensitive soul and delusions of
> | entitlement.
> `----
>
> Doesn't that sound familiar?
No it doesn't in fact.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> It certainly would seem that you need no alms in that area.
>
In not accepting arrogance? Thanks. I try.
/David
William F. Adams
I really think you should consider the matter that if you'd read two weeks
worth of posts before posting, all of this sturm und drang could've been
avoided, you'd've either had your answer or known where to find it, and we
could be having a much more interesting discussion.
To be fair, a lot of this seems to be misunderstandings brought about by the
asynchronous nature of news feeds, so I retract my contribution to this
discussion and ask that no one comment further on it.
If someone does want to discuss this sort of thing further, does anyone have
any comments on document markup concepts as they relate to LaTeX macros or
pointers to previous discussions which are interesting and which people have
found worthwhile? I've found a few things in the Maps newsletter....
Jim Mac
@news.net.uni-c.dk:
> Having written a nice document using mostly very simple and common
LaTeX
> features, is there a way to just "plug in" some package or something,
> that will change the appearance (fonts, layout etc.) of my document to
> some other style than the "default LaTeX style"?
>
> /David
>
>
warning: I am no expert; in fact, my solution to your problem is so
simple, that the fact that no other texnicians as I see have come up with
the same solution, makes me doubt it myself...
In XHTML, using stylesheets to alter the appearance of your document can
be done in 2 ways:
1. have the document refer to a single stylesheet, i.e., "style.css".
Then if you want to alter the appearance, you swap different versions of
"style.css" in and out of the directory your document resides in.
2. have the document refer to multiple stylesheets, i.e., "style1.css"
"style2.css" ... "style9.css" and so forth. You can then maintain all
your different stylesheets in the same directory, and alter the
appearance of the document by manually editing the referring line in your
document header.
(3. there are javascript alternatives I am not wise enough to
comprehend.)
...
In LaTeX, both of these methods are available via the \input{filename}
command. Use the line in your preamble; it works even as the opening
line. Then in the "filename.tex" files referred to, you just put in your
normal LaTeX commands, including those for documentclass, packages to be
used, and so forth.
You can then follow the \input line with your document, or
\input{contents} separately.
So: either you open with \input{style} and swap different "style.tex"
files in and out of the directory, or you manually edit the line as
\input{style1}, \input{style2} ... \input{style9}.
You can also (in both XHTML and LaTeX) go the multiple style files route,
and simply comment out the styles you won't use.
HTH, jmcc
Rowland McDonnell
> David Magda wrote:
[snip]
> > First type it up in the default style, and once it's done, then fool
> > around with the look.
>
> That's exactly what I want to do. I just want to be sure _before_ I
> write it, that I can change the layout afterwards, without problems.
You'll be able to change it - but not without *any* problems. This is
real life. But your problems should be fairly easy to solve.
But aside from that: if you write your document with the standard
classes, you'll be able to change things. I reckon your best bet would
be to do a *little* bit of fiddling before you write the full thing -
but not too much, because it's easy to spend too much time on that sort
of thing.
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
PGP pub key 0x62DCCA78 Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
Rowland McDonnell
Whyever not? You clearly need teaching about Usenet, and I for one am
glad that someone's taken the time to try to educate you. Surely you
should be glad that someone has taken the time and trouble to try to
help you learn something you need to learn?
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I also recommend that on the final print out use a good quality laser
> (not an ink jet!) and good paper. If you want *really* good quality
> paper (archival) get cotton paper.
If you want archival quality, don't use a laser printer. I've seen
laser toner flake off and get transferred to other sheets of paper in
storage, and all sorts of things like that. Inkjet ink might be capable
of washing off, but it's permanent and it's ink. If you print with an
inkjet on acid free paper and keep the paper somewhere sensible, it'll
last pretty much as long as anyone could possibly want. Laser printing
looks prettier in the short term, mind.
David Rasmussen
>
> Whyever not? You clearly need teaching about Usenet, and I for one am
> glad that someone's taken the time to try to educate you. Surely you
> should be glad that someone has taken the time and trouble to try to
> help you learn something you need to learn?
>
I am very happy for the TeX related answers I have gotten. I am still a
rank newbie at (La)TeX (as you can probably tell). The insecure
emotional insults about my usenet "abilities", I dismiss as exactly
that. I have been on Usenet for nigh on 10 years now, writing and
reading in all sorts of groups, helping whereever I can. I know how
Usenet works, and I know how the normal rules of social conduct of any
forum. Arrogant behavior is not what I consider "okay". After so many
years of Usenet experience, being a regular in many groups, having seen
many pointless emotional personal discussions built mainly on arrogance,
do you really expect me to take advices about Usenet given to me,
seriously? From people that breaks the most basic rules of social
conduct? Get real.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> If you want archival quality, don't use a laser printer. I've seen
> laser toner flake off and get transferred to other sheets of paper in
> storage, and all sorts of things like that. Inkjet ink might be capable
> of washing off, but it's permanent and it's ink. If you print with an
> inkjet on acid free paper and keep the paper somewhere sensible, it'll
> last pretty much as long as anyone could possibly want. Laser printing
> looks prettier in the short term, mind.
>
Interesting. And I was thinking of buying a laser printer. Guess I'll
consider buying another ink jet then.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> You'll be able to change it - but not without *any* problems. This is
> real life. But your problems should be fairly easy to solve.
>
Okay.
> But aside from that: if you write your document with the standard
> classes, you'll be able to change things. I reckon your best bet would
> be to do a *little* bit of fiddling before you write the full thing -
> but not too much, because it's easy to spend too much time on that sort
> of thing.
>
I smell something equivalent to "early optimization is the root of all
evil". On the other hand, sometimes early design decisions can prove
fatal later. I guess I will just go with the default layout, so I have
something working. If I have time, then, I will tweak the layout.
/David
William F. Adams
>If you want archival quality, don't use a laser printer. I've seen
>laser toner flake off and get transferred to other sheets of paper in
>storage, and all sorts of things like that.
Normally this is caused by off-gassing and is a serious, long-term archival
concern.
>Inkjet ink might be capable
>of washing off, but it's permanent and it's ink. If you print with an
>inkjet on acid free paper and keep the paper somewhere sensible, it'll
>last pretty much as long as anyone could possibly want. Laser printing
>looks prettier in the short term, mind.
Moreover, there are a couple of companies which produce third-party archival
quality / neutral Ph inks.
Another option (esp. in / near Europe or Japan) is ALPS line of ``Micro-Dry''
printers which use heat and pressure to transfer a pigment (not dye) from a
ribbon. Acid free, lightfast (no fading w/ 6 months exposure in a north-facing
window) and very nice print quality.
David Kastrup
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > Whyever not? You clearly need teaching about Usenet, and I for
> > one am glad that someone's taken the time to try to educate you.
> > Surely you should be glad that someone has taken the time and
> > trouble to try to help you learn something you need to learn?
>
> I am very happy for the TeX related answers I have gotten. I am
> still a rank newbie at (La)TeX (as you can probably tell). The
> insecure emotional insults about my usenet "abilities", I dismiss as
> exactly that. I have been on Usenet for nigh on 10 years now,
So you are trying to lecture me about propriety of conduct in a forum
I have been participating in for longer than you even know the medium
Usenet?
> writing and reading in all sorts of groups, helping whereever I
> can. I know how Usenet works, and I know how the normal rules of
> social conduct of any forum.
If you know the normal rules of social conduct in any forum, you
should know the normal rules of social conduct that several people in
here have taken pains to explain to you. You should know the normal
rules of social conduct in Usenet that have been quoted to you from
RFCs (do you even know what that is as a comparative newbie?) and
from generally accepted sources about netiquette.
So the question is what reason you have to refuse to obey those
generally accepted rules of conduct which you claim to know, yet try
to change topic whenever they are brought up or spelled out.
> Arrogant behavior is not what I consider "okay".
Then stop it.
> After so many years of Usenet experience, being a regular in many
> groups, having seen many pointless emotional personal discussions
> built mainly on arrogance, do you really expect me to take advices
> about Usenet given to me, seriously? From people that breaks the
> most basic rules of social conduct?
So you did not even know Usenet when I already was posting advice in
comp.text.tex. And at that time, it was quite often necessary to
indeed spell out solutions that were not documented in manuals or
available in packages.
But when a concise, well-ordered manual like that of KOMA exists, it
makes more sense to point to it rather than to repeat what is written
in there, in particular since the volume of questions nowadays is much
larger than at olden times where indeed there was no relative lack of
experts, almost everyone having digged through tomes of documentation
and more often non-documentation such as source files before asking.
And somebody went to a lot of effort in order to write that manual,
effort that one should not let go waste without reason.
If you have any questions after looking at the existing documentation,
or even if you need a pointer for where to look in it, fine. But if
you state
<quote>
David Kastrup wrote:
> scrguien.dvi exists.
>
Can't argue with that :)
It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300
pages of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use.
/David
</quote>
then you are pointing out that you consider your own time more
important than that of others. You don't want to invest even a basic
modicum of effort into something for which you find it ok if others go
to the pain of creating an answer for you, and you even have the balls
to tell them that you are not likely to even consider making use of
the results of their efforts if they spend the effort of answering
your request instead of referring you to the manual.
If you fail to see the impoliteness in that, I am afraid that the
close to 10 years you pretend to have been educating yourself about
social conduct on Usenet have been wasted so far.
Try another 10, then post again.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > Whyever not? You clearly need teaching about Usenet, and I for one am
> > glad that someone's taken the time to try to educate you. Surely you
> > should be glad that someone has taken the time and trouble to try to
> > help you learn something you need to learn?
> >
>
> I am very happy for the TeX related answers I have gotten. I am still a
> rank newbie at (La)TeX (as you can probably tell). The insecure
> emotional insults about my usenet "abilities", I dismiss as exactly
> that.
What about the rational constructive criticisms made of your mistakes?
> I have been on Usenet for nigh on 10 years now, writing and
> reading in all sorts of groups, helping whereever I can. I know how
> Usenet works, and I know how the normal rules of social conduct of any
> forum.
So you already know everything that can be known about Usenet, and are
in a position to instruct everyone else on the planet as the ultimate
Usenet authority?
> Arrogant behavior is not what I consider "okay".
And yet you have displayed such behaviour in this newsgroup.
You've just said that you know it all and don't need to learn anything.
That sounds pretty arrogant to me.
If you know anything about Usenet, you know that it's changing all the
time and that what's `correct' in one newsgroup is often unacceptable in
another.
You seem to me to seek to bully everyone to accept your mode of
behaviour. You will find that if my viewpoint is correct, you'll get
little help from this newsgroup and will not be able to change how it
works.
> After so many
> years of Usenet experience, being a regular in many groups, having seen
> many pointless emotional personal discussions built mainly on arrogance,
> do you really expect me to take advices about Usenet given to me,
> seriously? From people that breaks the most basic rules of social
> conduct? Get real.
You reject the advice of others, given in response to your false claims;
you complain about arrogance, and yet you feel that it's perfectly okay
for you, a newcomer to this newsgroup, to instruct regulars here on the
correct way to behave? Not a great way to get people to help you
really, is it?
Rowland McDonnell
My next printer will be a laser printer. I prefer the way that laser
printed output doesn's smear when damp, most of the time I'm not
bothered about the way it won't keep for decades, and I'm looking
forward to some decent printing speed and not having to piddle about
with crappy third party device drivers (I'll be going for an Ethernet
Postscript printer).
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
[snip]
> > But aside from that: if you write your document with the standard
> > classes, you'll be able to change things. I reckon your best bet would
> > be to do a *little* bit of fiddling before you write the full thing -
> > but not too much, because it's easy to spend too much time on that sort
> > of thing.
>
> I smell something equivalent to "early optimization is the root of all
> evil".
Maybe - I've no idea where that comes from. In the case of LaTeX, I
find that the most efficient way of producing a document is to write it
first, and then do the formatting. I don't mean just write the text and
then add LaTeX markup: I mean I write in LaTeX markup but ignore what
it's going to look like until I've finished (unless it's a document I've
already got a design for). I often put LaTeX commands into the text of
my document that I've not yet written - I put the markup in, assuming
that I'll be able to get the markup to do something useful once I've
written the bloody document, damnit (as you might gather, it doesn't
always work smoothly, but it has always worked in the end).
This isn't any kind of theoretical diktat from some loony hacker or
computer scientist or anything: it's just the results of an `ordinary'
user's personal experience.
The idea of doing a little fiddling is if you do that, you'll most
likely convince yourself that you can do what you want and that it might
well be a good idea to get on with the writing and leave the LaTeXing
until later because you'll find out you can spend 26 hours a day 8 days
a week LaTeX hacking just to get things right. Never mind *perfection*
- it'll be pretty good if you use LaTeX, and you need to publish. Hell,
once upon a time this sort of thing was typed up on old fashioned
mechanical typewriters and copies were carbon copies.
> On the other hand, sometimes early design decisions can prove
> fatal later. I guess I will just go with the default layout, so I have
> something working. If I have time, then, I will tweak the layout.
The layout's not terribly relevant when you're in the writing phase.
What you do when you write a LaTeX document is not to specify the
layout, but to specify the logical structure. Once you've got good
structural markup (and LaTeX was written to give users structural markup
long before XML was thought of), you can make the final layout almost
anything you like (just so long as you want something slightly sane)
with the use of a suitable class, any packages that might be handy, and
maybe a bit of coding - all of which you can get help with via this
newsgroup.
Structural markup basically means using things like \section{} and
avoiding things like \begin{center} unless absolutely necessary.
Patrick TJ McPhee
David Rasmussen <david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
% They can just refrain from answering. Nobody forces them to read or
% answer all messages.
Ah, but how do they know which questions are worth reading, and which
are just the maunderings of people too lazy to bother consulting any
resources because it's easier for them to ask the question here, first?
I don't really know where this issue is coming from as your original
question seemed quite reasonable and I haven't followed every
development in the thread since then, but the attitude you've expressed
here is certainly contarary to the spirit of usenet as a whole (cf
emily postnews et al, which have been around since the '80s because
of people like you), and it's likely to piss not a few people off,
apart from wasting their time.
--
Patrick TJ McPhee
East York Canada
pt...@interlog.com
Rowland McDonnell
> rowland said:
> >If you want archival quality, don't use a laser printer. I've seen
> >laser toner flake off and get transferred to other sheets of paper in
> >storage, and all sorts of things like that.
>
> Normally this is caused by off-gassing
I had wondered about the mechanism.
> and is a serious, long-term archival
> concern.
I'd spotted that already. If laser printed stuff doesn't last either in
my wallet or my filing cabinet, it's crap for archiving.
> >Inkjet ink might be capable
> >of washing off, but it's permanent and it's ink. If you print with an
> >inkjet on acid free paper and keep the paper somewhere sensible, it'll
> >last pretty much as long as anyone could possibly want. Laser printing
> >looks prettier in the short term, mind.
>
> Moreover, there are a couple of companies which produce third-party archival
> quality / neutral Ph inks.
I hadn't thought of that. Good one.
> Another option (esp. in / near Europe or Japan) is ALPS line of ``Micro-Dry''
> printers which use heat and pressure to transfer a pigment (not dye) from a
> ribbon. Acid free, lightfast (no fading w/ 6 months exposure in a north-facing
> window) and very nice print quality.
A mere 6 month's exposure in a north-facing window sounds like you're
letting it off lightly to me - but then, I live in a generally overcast
part of the Northern hemisphere. Which part of the world are you
talking about?
Aside from that, this micro-dry process: does it put pigment into the
bulk of the paper, rather than just laying something on the top as with
electrostatic transfer toner? If not, I'd stick with ink for archiving:
decent ink and decent paper is something archivists know how to keep
pretty much forever.
David Rasmussen
>
> Ah, but how do they know which questions are worth reading, and which
> are just the maunderings of people too lazy to bother consulting any
> resources because it's easier for them to ask the question here, first?
>
I don't know, but it's not the issue here since there have been no such
questions from no such people.
> I don't really know where this issue is coming from
Me niether.
> as your original
> question seemed quite reasonable and I haven't followed every
> development in the thread since then, but the attitude you've expressed
> here is certainly contarary to the spirit of usenet as a whole (cf
> emily postnews et al, which have been around since the '80s because
> of people like you), and it's likely to piss not a few people off,
> apart from wasting their time.
It's funny; I think the attitude I've expressed is the only logical and
reasonable one. My "attitude" in general goes fine in any other group,
whether I am asking questions, or giving answers as a regular. Having
been in many groups, often as a regular, and having never encountered
quite such an unreasonable response before, to a reasonable behavior,
but quite contrary have been treated with the normal respect that people
usually treat eachother with, you can understand that I find it hard to
take such attacks and a claim about my "attitude" such as yours above,
serious.
Do you even know what you're "accusing" me of? and why? Or are you just
barking along?
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> My next printer will be a laser printer. I prefer the way that laser
> printed output doesn's smear when damp, most of the time I'm not
> bothered about the way it won't keep for decades, and I'm looking
> forward to some decent printing speed and not having to piddle about
> with crappy third party device drivers (I'll be going for an Ethernet
> Postscript printer).
>
That's exactly the thoughts I've been having. I want a printer that
1) has "laser printer quality" in printings (good lasers look better,
IMO, than good inkjets)
2) works with Linux, without me having to use some weird driver that
makes inferior printings
3) understands postscript directly
4) can be put directly on an Ethernet LAN
5) has the duplex option
6) is fast and cheap in use
The demand of having the prints last for ages, is not terribly
important. On the other hand, I wouldn't want the quality of the print
to deteriorate rapidly.
I see that color laser printers are much cheaper now than they were 2
years ago. Maybe I should look into that...
/David
R. H. Allen
<david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Jon Ericson wrote:
>> My guess is
>> that most people who answer questions here, do so because they find
>> the questions interesting. I also guess that most people don't find
>> questions that can be answered from a manual very interesting.
>>
>
>All the questions answered in here, are answered in a manual.
If you believe that, clearly you *are* a LaTeX newbie....
David Rasmussen
>
> What about the rational constructive criticisms made of your mistakes?
>
Those are taken to heart too. I haven't got any so far, though.
>
> So you already know everything that can be known about Usenet,
Definately not.
> and are
> in a position to instruct everyone else on the planet as the ultimate
> Usenet authority?
>
Do you really think so? I disagree.
>
>>Arrogant behavior is not what I consider "okay".
>
> And yet you have displayed such behaviour in this newsgroup.
>
I have? Where? I don't think so. I admit, though, that I have made
sarcastic responses to some of the arrogant things being said to me.
> You've just said that you know it all and don't need to learn anything.
Where did I say that?!
> That sounds pretty arrogant to me.
>
To me, too.
> If you know anything about Usenet, you know that it's changing all the
> time and that what's `correct' in one newsgroup is often unacceptable in
> another.
>
That's true. But what exactly is that is unacceptable in this group?
Asking a question? What I find unacceptable in _any_ group, is harsh
uncalled for arrogance.
> You seem to me to seek to bully everyone to accept your mode of
> behaviour.
_I_ am bullying?! I disagree wildly...
And what is my "mode of behavior"? What exactly are you criticizing me for?
> You will find that if my viewpoint is correct, you'll get
> little help from this newsgroup and will not be able to change how it
> works.
>
I don't want to change how it works, although I do hope that the
arrogant outburst will be much less frequent in the future.
>
> You reject the advice of others,
Where?
> given in response to your false claims;
What false claims?
> you complain about arrogance, and yet you feel that it's perfectly okay
> for you, a newcomer to this newsgroup, to instruct regulars here on the
> correct way to behave?
Read your above paragraph. See it from my point of view:
I complain about arrogance.
That means I think some people are arrogant in their answers to me.
Do I then feel it is ok to tell them not to be arrogant, regulars or
not? Certainly.
Can you explain to me, given my point of view (I think some people are
being arrogant), what should be my response then? The appropriate
response. Which, for you, seem to depend on whether these, for me,
arrogant people, are regulars or not. What is that response? To keep quiet?
> Not a great way to get people to help you
> really, is it?
>
I haven't had trouble getting help yet, but if you suggest that I just
take peoples insults without response, to boost my chances of getting
help, then guess we disagree on what one should do in such situations.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> If you believe that, clearly you *are* a LaTeX newbie....
I haven't said otherwise :)
Besides that I think you understand what I mean by that sentence, could
you give an example of such a question?
/David
R. H. Allen
<david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>In this case, I was having a fine time with David Magda telling me what
>he had done with his thesis. David Kastrup enters, and tells me to read
>the manual for Komascript. I tell him that I don't think that is an
>appropriate solution for the problem I am having, at this stage.
No. Your response was:
"It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300 pages
of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use."
That's hardly polite. Someone points you to the *definitive* source of
information on Komascript -- the ONLY place you can see its full range
of capability -- and you call it irrelevant.
Mind you, I don't think your original question was unreasonable. There
are a lot of packages available and sometimes the only way to really
find what you want is to ask a group of experienced users. However, I do
think the way you handled some of the responses *was* unreasonable. If
you can't be bothered to skim a manual, you're going to have a tough
time learning LaTeX.
>This is
>my honest opinion. That doesn't mean that I will not read it at some
>point. It just means that I think, refering to the above categories,
>that I need(ed) something like a Komascript _tutorial_ or _primer_.
Well, word of advice to a LaTeX newbie: Tutorials for packages are rare.
PSTricks and the AMS math packages are about the only ones I've used
that have anything approaching a tutorial. If you *really* want to know
what Komascript (or memoir, for that matter) can do, you pretty much
*have* to skim the manual. You can ask people for examples that they've
created, but that won't tell you the full range of capability of these
packages -- which is what you *seemed* to be asking for. Nobody says you
have to read 300 pages -- just skim it. See if it has commands for
changing heading formats, page formats, whatever it is that you're
interested in. As David Kastrup said, "It has a good table of contents
and an index." Use them.
>My questions _aren't_ answered in any document.
Well, if you believe this, and you believe that every answer posted here
is in a manual somewhere (as you asserted in another post), then why did
you ask your questions here? Isn't that a waste of your time?
alan
Donald Arseneau
> > and is a serious, long-term archival
> > concern.
>
> I'd spotted that already. If laser printed stuff doesn't last either in
> my wallet or my filing cabinet, it's crap for archiving.
Not necessarily. What I've seen, the toner sticks to plastic / other
toner (which is plastic) but not fresh paper. So for something archived,
make sure you print it single-sided, and don't put it in a plastic
cover or binder.
I have neen astonished with the quality of some inkjet printers.
Finding ink that is lightfast (doesn't fade) is a problem.
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > What about the rational constructive criticisms made of your mistakes?
>
> Those are taken to heart too. I haven't got any so far, though.
I think you'd better re-read the thread. You've had plenty.
> > So you already know everything that can be known about Usenet,
>
> Definately not.
It sounds like you're claiming that you do.
> > and are
> > in a position to instruct everyone else on the planet as the ultimate
> > Usenet authority?
>
> Do you really think so? I disagree.
I don't think you are, but you seemed to be claiming that you were in
such a position.
> >>Arrogant behavior is not what I consider "okay".
> >
> > And yet you have displayed such behaviour in this newsgroup.
>
> I have? Where?
See below.
> I don't think so. I admit, though, that I have made
> sarcastic responses to some of the arrogant things being said to me.
You've made what seem to me to be quite obnoxious responses to some
reasonable posts. What are these allegedly arrogant things which have
been said to you? I can't see any.
> > You've just said that you know it all and don't need to learn anything.
>
> Where did I say that?!
What interpretation is one to place on your words in
Message-ID: <bqo040$hj8$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>? I can't see the point in
re-posting it entirely - but really, what *do* you expect people to make
of you if, in response to valid criticism of your behaviour, you say
things like:
`I know how
Usenet works, and I know how the normal rules of social conduct of any
forum.'
or
`do you really expect me to take advices about Usenet given to me,
seriously?'
[snip]
> > If you know anything about Usenet, you know that it's changing all the
> > time and that what's `correct' in one newsgroup is often unacceptable in
> > another.
>
> That's true. But what exactly is that is unacceptable in this group?
> Asking a question?
No. The cardinal sin in this newsgroup is refusing to try the offered
advice. That includes refusing to read the manual, especially when
pointed at it with vigour. There are many lesser sins - failing to RTFM
before posting, failing to check the FAQ before posting (including the
bits about how to ask questions intelligently), failing to include a
minimal example, and failing to engage brain before posting (not to
mention rattling someone's cage or treading on the toes of a grouch
who's got out of the wrong side of bed that morning).
Basically, if someone here says you need to read some documentation, you
almost certainly do need to read it and you will almost certainly
benefit greatly from doing so. So reading it is what you need to do:
most emphatically. If you want to get best use out of LaTeX, you've
*got* to read lots of docs. The initial time investment pays off, I can
assure you. I've been using LaTeX for far too long, and - well, any
time I take the trouble to read a new chunk of documentation, my life
gets easier. One thing to bear in mind: the average user doesn't need
to understand everything. A lot of the time, the docs you'll be reading
will give you a lot of useful background information which you don't
need to get to grips with in detail, and will also include lots of stuff
you don't need to pay much attention to at all at the moment - time's
always pressing, so when you read LaTeX docs, learn how to skip bits and
skim intelligently.
> What I find unacceptable in _any_ group, is harsh
> uncalled for arrogance.
Fair enough. You need to learn how this newsgroup works. You've not
been the recipient of harsh uncalled for arrogance: in *your* arrogance,
you decided you knew how to interpreted the responses you got. What you
got was slightly abrasive irritation - perfectly understandable given
your posts.
> > You seem to me to seek to bully everyone to accept your mode of
> > behaviour.
>
> _I_ am bullying?! I disagree wildly...
Doesn't look like it from here.
> And what is my "mode of behavior"? What exactly are you criticizing me for?
Charging around like a bull in a china shop.
> > You will find that if my viewpoint is correct, you'll get
> > little help from this newsgroup and will not be able to change how it
> > works.
>
> I don't want to change how it works,
Seems to me as if you do. You said you know how Usenet works, with the
implication (to me at least) that the normal operation of this newsgroup
- which is what you were complaining about - needed changing.
[snip]
> > You reject the advice of others,
>
> Where?
Refusing to read some documentation as I recall.
> > given in response to your false claims;
>
> What false claims?
Oh god I can't be bothered to dig it out. I recall you missing the
point somewhere and refusing to reassess your understanding.
> > you complain about arrogance, and yet you feel that it's perfectly okay
> > for you, a newcomer to this newsgroup, to instruct regulars here on the
> > correct way to behave?
>
> Read your above paragraph. See it from my point of view:
> I complain about arrogance.
No, see it from *my* point of view: you complain about arrogance while
displaying grotesque arrogance yourself. Understand that point.
> That means I think some people are arrogant in their answers to me.
See it from my point of view: I didn't see anyone treating you
arrogantly. Understand that point: you have not been badly treated but
have simply met the normal practices of this newsgroup. You come here,
and you preach to us about our behaviour, when you - being a newcomer -
cannot see what our behaviour means to us, the regular users of this
newsgroup? That's arrogance on your part.
> Do I then feel it is ok to tell them not to be arrogant, regulars or
> not? Certainly.
See it from my point of view: you have behaved arrogantly and you got
off moderately lightly all things considered, *and* you got useful
technical assistance. So what are you complaining about?
One good thing is that you've been willing to engage in a civilised
discussion about the problem, which is enough (on this newsgroup at
least) to ensure that you won't be sent to Coventry - ctt has to work
like that, if only because quite a lot of the regulars (me included) get
crabby at times.
> Can you explain to me, given my point of view (I think some people are
> being arrogant), what should be my response then?
Re-assess the situation in the light of new information? Understand how
it is that you've come across as arrogant (etc).
> The appropriate
> response. Which, for you, seem to depend on whether these, for me,
> arrogant people, are regulars or not.
I'm not sure why it seems like that. One point to consider is that if
the postings of certain people strike you as objectionable, and yet
those postings are made by respected regulars here, it's entirely
possible that you've misunderstood something. Being a regular doesn't
make you beyond criticism; but if you're a regular, then your behaviour
is probably considered normal for the newsgroup (although I'm an
intermittent regular here, I suspect my behaviour isn't considered quite
so okay, but what the hell - they can't shoot me via an ISDN line yet).
> What is that response? To keep quiet?
No, to learn about the newsgroup before shooting your mouth off.
> > Not a great way to get people to help you
> > really, is it?
> >
>
> I haven't had trouble getting help yet,
True enough - and long may that continue. Those of us who post here
regularly do so because we want to help, and in most cases also wish to
get help. That's why I've spent the time trying to, erm, pour oil on
flaming waters or whatever it is I've been doing.
> but if you suggest that I just
> take peoples insults without response, to boost my chances of getting
> help, then guess we disagree on what one should do in such situations.
I think you should take some time to understand things from the point of
view of others. *Then* decide how to respond - not before. And if you
want to respond, don't preach (do what I say, not what I do, right?) -
simply registering a complaint is enough in the first instance in
civilised company, I reckon.
Rowland McDonnell
Okay.... Try: using LaTeX, how can I create a list of user-supplied
items, and then examine that list to see if it contains a given element?
Or analyse the list into single items?
That's a real job I wanted to do for a real LaTeX package that I really
released - eurofont - and I got the answers by asking on this newsgroup.
That job ain't covered in the manual, unless you mean in the broad sense
of `everything one needs to learn to do that job is contained in the
TeXbook', which you'll know isn't exactly helpful if you've ever looked
at the blasted thing.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> The demand of having the prints last for ages, is not terribly
> important. On the other hand, I wouldn't want the quality of the print
> to deteriorate rapidly.
I've just looked at a document I've got, laser printed... ooh! by the
Manchester University ECAD lab HP LaserJet II, on 1989-11-30 (I never
thought the print job cover sheet would be useful) - 14 years ago. It's
printed on unremarkable white paper and it's mostly lived in a filing
cabinet at home. The toner's sat there happily, showing no signs of
dropping off or coming off even under finger rubbing. I've got a
slightly younger document in the same folder - it's printed on naff
recycled paper, and it seems fine too: the toner's sat there happily,
showing no signs of having dropped off, being transferred, or coming
loose when I rub it with a finger.
Laser prints might not be any good for archiving, but they're okay for
everyday stuff, I reckon.
> I see that color laser printers are much cheaper now than they were 2
> years ago. Maybe I should look into that...
Look into running costs.
Rowland McDonnell
> Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
[snip]
> > as your original
> > question seemed quite reasonable and I haven't followed every
> > development in the thread since then, but the attitude you've expressed
> > here is certainly contarary to the spirit of usenet as a whole (cf
> > emily postnews et al, which have been around since the '80s because
> > of people like you), and it's likely to piss not a few people off,
> > apart from wasting their time.
>
> It's funny; I think the attitude I've expressed is the only logical and
> reasonable one. My "attitude" in general goes fine in any other group,
> whether I am asking questions, or giving answers as a regular.
Okay. But it's not working here. That must mean either you're
different here to the way you usually are; or this newsgroup works
differently to newsgroups you are used to.
You have in fact clearly irritated a fair few regular posters. Think on
that. *You* think you're being reasonable; but more than one or two
regulars here disagree.
Whether your different to your usual self, or whether you're not adapted
to the way this newsgroup works, I don't know - but you're clearly
getting something wrong and what's worse, apparently refusing to
acknowledge the possibility.
[snip]
David Kastrup
> David Rasmussen <david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > R. H. Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > If you believe that, clearly you *are* a LaTeX newbie....
> >
> > I haven't said otherwise :)
> >
> > Besides that I think you understand what I mean by that sentence, could
> > you give an example of such a question?
>
> Okay.... Try: using LaTeX, how can I create a list of user-supplied
> items, and then examine that list to see if it contains a given element?
> Or analyse the list into single items?
>
> That's a real job I wanted to do for a real LaTeX package that I really
> released - eurofont - and I got the answers by asking on this newsgroup.
> That job ain't covered in the manual, unless you mean in the broad sense
> of `everything one needs to learn to do that job is contained in the
> TeXbook', which you'll know isn't exactly helpful if you've ever looked
> at the blasted thing.
I found that unfortunately _not_ everything one needs to learn to do a
job with TeX is covered with sufficient clarity in the TeXbook. There
have been quite a number of times when I had to revert to the actual
Web program code in order to get an explanation how a particular
effect came about. In case you are not a programmer, you'd be screwed
in such a case without the possibility of asking in a forum where more
knowledgable people or programmers hang out.
David Cameron Staples
<david.r...@gmx.net> in hoc locus scripsit:
> Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, but how do they know which questions are worth reading, and which
>> are just the maunderings of people too lazy to bother consulting any
>> resources because it's easier for them to ask the question here, first?
>>
>
> I don't know, but it's not the issue here since there have been no such
> questions from no such people.
>
>> I don't really know where this issue is coming from
>
> Me niether.
>
>> as your original
>> question seemed quite reasonable and I haven't followed every
>> development in the thread since then, but the attitude you've expressed
>> here is certainly contarary to the spirit of usenet as a whole (cf
>> emily postnews et al, which have been around since the '80s because
>> of people like you), and it's likely to piss not a few people off,
>> apart from wasting their time.
>
> It's funny; I think the attitude I've expressed is the only logical and
> reasonable one. My "attitude" in general goes fine in any other group,
*This* *is* *not* *any* *other* *group*
How many times must you be told? 'It's fine over there...' is
no excuse for not learning how it is done *here*, and never has been.
We do not go to alt.sex.bestiality.barney and demand that they change how
they react to people, and they don't do it to us. It seems the only person
who has a problem with that is you. Get over it.
> whether I am asking questions, or giving answers as a regular. Having
> been in many groups, often as a regular, and having never encountered
> quite such an unreasonable response before, to a reasonable behavior,
You started with a good question, then continued with 'I won't RTFM'.
That is not reasonable behaviour. We (that is, CTT regulars) have spent
quite some time trying to explain exactly what was wrong with that
behaviour, and why we don't like it. You called us arrogant and bullies.
We are tired of it.
> but quite contrary have been treated with the normal respect that people
> usually treat eachother with, you can understand that I find it hard to
> take such attacks and a claim about my "attitude" such as yours above,
> serious.
We give respect to those who have earned it, and to people who we don't
know by the benefit of the doubt. You have not earned respect, and we know
you by now.
>
> Do you even know what you're "accusing" me of? and why? Or are you just
> barking along?
>
We are accusing you of being rude, selfish and arrogant.
You asked a technical question in a technical group.
You were given a reference to the answer.
You replied that you couldn't be bothered to RTFM.
*This is rude.*
You were told that this is a basic requirement for understanding the
system you have just requested information on.
You started complaining that we are all unreasonable thugs and bullies,
who don't respond to you as you expect, and you seem to be demanding that
we change to fit your expectations of behaviour.
*This is selfish and arrogant.*
By continuing to argue your own righteousness in a forum where the numbers
are one-to-everyone-else, you begin to add stupidity to the list.
Give it up, mate.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
Thanks for the Dadaist Pep-talk.
David Cameron Staples
<david.r...@gmx.net> in hoc locus scripsit:
One which I asked is: is it possible to have a given box automatically
included at the start of every line in a paragraph in TeX or LaTeX?
It turns out that the answer is 'no', but you will only find that in the
documentation to Omega, and only by inference learn that Omega does it
because (La)TeX cannot. It is in *a* manual, but not the one you might
expect, and it needs someone who knows what the answer is to point you to
it. *Then* you go and read what you were referred.
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) writes:
>
> > > and is a serious, long-term archival
> > > concern.
> >
> > I'd spotted that already. If laser printed stuff doesn't last either in
> > my wallet or my filing cabinet, it's crap for archiving.
>
> Not necessarily. What I've seen, the toner sticks to plastic / other
> toner (which is plastic) but not fresh paper.
I've seen toner transfer to paper - but admittedly only when the
document's been kept under pressure.
> So for something archived,
> make sure you print it single-sided, and don't put it in a plastic
> cover or binder.
That sounds like good advice. I've seen more transfer from toner-toner
as you describe than from toner-paper.
> I have neen astonished with the quality of some inkjet printers.
Me too - but I can't be bothered keeping the paper dry enough for top
quality.
> Finding ink that is lightfast (doesn't fade) is a problem.
Really? I've not noticed HP black ink fading myself. Then again, I've
not tried torturing it.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> By continuing to argue your own righteousness in a forum where the numbers
> are one-to-everyone-else, you begin to add stupidity to the list.
Umm... Dissent (but in a small voice): I find that when I'm in a
one-to-everyone-else minority, I'm right about half the time[1]. I
might be less boneheadedly pig ignorant than the OP, though.
Just because you are in a one-to-everyone-else minority doesn't mean
you're wrong - but it does mean you ought to take a look at what you're
at *very* carefully. If you don't do that, *that's* stupid.
> Give it up, mate.
Damn right.
Rowland.
[1] And my wife agrees with me on this one - honest, she really does.
Jason Earl
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>> If you know anything about Usenet, you know that it's changing all the
>> time and that what's `correct' in one newsgroup is often unacceptable in
>> another.
>>
>
> That's true. But what exactly is that is unacceptable in this group?
> Asking a question? What I find unacceptable in _any_ group, is harsh
> uncalled for arrogance.
>
>> You seem to me to seek to bully everyone to accept your mode of
>> behaviour.
>
> _I_ am bullying?! I disagree wildly...
>
> And what is my "mode of behavior"? What exactly are you criticizing
> me for?
Listen Dave, you might not feel like you are being a bully, and you
might even believe that you are following proper netiquette, but the
people who are telling you differently happen to be some of the most
knowledgeable and helpful folks on this newsgroup. If you end up in
their killfiles (or scorefiles as the case may be with the Gnus users)
you are very likely to find that the quality of help you get from this
group suffers dramatically.
Now, I am not trying to be ominous or threatening (as I personally am
not wizard enough to be of much help to anyone with TeX), I am just
laying the facts out straight. For example, Rowland McDonnell has
written the secsty package and helped with the font installation
guide, and David Kastrup wrote the excellent Preview-LateX package
(that's just the stuff that I, a LaTeX newbie, was able to name off
the top of my head). That's just the two people above you in this
thread, I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
So, you may be right, but sometimes it is better to be diplomatic than
to be right (please note: I am not saying that I think you followed
proper netiquette). What you are doing is akin to going up to your
first year Literature teacher and telling him that his class is
boring, and that he needs to comb his hair. That may be true, but it
certainly isn't going to help you learn Literature, nor will it help
you get a good grade on your next essay. You aren't going to change
these people's minds about netiquette, and in the future, when you
have a question that can't be answered by the comp.text.tex peanut
gallery you are going to have a hard time getting an answer.
This newsgroup really does work better than most, and part of its
secret is that people asking questions are encouraged to do a little
homework first. That helps assure that the questions that do get
asked are worth reading.
Jason
Jon Ericson
> David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
>
>> By continuing to argue your own righteousness in a forum where the
>> numbers are one-to-everyone-else, you begin to add stupidity to the
>> list.
>
> Umm... Dissent (but in a small voice): I find that when I'm in a
> one-to-everyone-else minority, I'm right about half the time. I
> might be less boneheadedly pig ignorant than the OP, though.
>
> Just because you are in a one-to-everyone-else minority doesn't mean
> you're wrong - but it does mean you ought to take a look at what you're
> at *very* carefully. If you don't do that, *that's* stupid.
It depends on the question, doesn't it? If the question is "what is
acceptable behavior for this unmoderated newsgroup?", than the odd man
out is wrong, since the majority define acceptable behavior. This is
the question that most people (including the OP) seem to be
addressing.
If the question is "what should be acceptable behavior for this
group?", than the dissenter could be right. Maybe that's what the OP
means, but I don't find his arguments very persuasive. For one thing,
he seems to refer to the standards in other groups without explaining
why they should be appropriate for this group.
Jon
--
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for
yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my
household, we will serve the LORD.
-- Joshua 24:15 (NIV)
Donald Arseneau
> > Finding ink that is lightfast (doesn't fade) is a problem.
>
> Really? I've not noticed HP black ink fading myself. Then again, I've
> not tried torturing it.
Sounds good. I confess my only recent experience is with colors,
and I hear of new colorfast inks (due to the digital photography
boom). I remember problems with black, but many years ago.
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Guy Worthington
> [David Rasmussen] You aren't going to change these people's minds
> about netiquette, and in the future, when you have a question that
> can't be answered by the comp.text.tex peanut gallery you are going
> to have a hard time getting an answer.
Mr Rasmussen is da man. He's currently treating us to an almost
arrogant display of compositional virtuosity which you'd dare stifle
with threats about the peanut gallery.
How many fruitless hours have you spent on writing pointless Socratic
dialogue about netiquette? When've you burnt the midnight oil
squandering other peoples time & effort? Do you think anyone's worthy
of issuing theats on behalf of the peanut gallery? You've first gotta
do the hard yards & make the sacrifices.
David Rasmussen
>
> Okay.... Try: using LaTeX, how can I create a list of user-supplied
> items, and then examine that list to see if it contains a given element?
> Or analyse the list into single items?
>
Why wouldn't that be answered in some combination of documentation? Is
it magic?
> That's a real job I wanted to do for a real LaTeX package that I really
> released - eurofont - and I got the answers by asking on this newsgroup.
> That job ain't covered in the manual, unless you mean in the broad sense
> of `everything one needs to learn to do that job is contained in the
> TeXbook', which you'll know isn't exactly helpful if you've ever looked
> at the blasted thing.
>
That's exactly what I mean. Not all questions can be feasibly answered
by looking in a manual. This thread have gotten way out of hand long
ago, but I can see that several people use the standard argument of "you
refused to RTFM". That's a gross simplification. What I asked was not
the kind of thing that is feasibly answered in a manual. And when told
to look it up in the manual, that's what I answered. I have already
given the example from C++. I would very seldom direct a person asking a
C++ question to Stroustrups book about C++, or to an EBNF describing
C++. Now, I didn't particularly think any less of David Kastrup for him
suggesting that I looked in the manual. I understand the suggestion. I
just answered then, along the lines given here, that I was not going to
read a 300 page manual. The result was an attack. I don't think it
answers my questions which wasn't terribly concrete. In subsequent posts
in this thread, this has been made out to be: 1) I asked a very simple
and concrete question that could have looked up in any FAQ or manual. 2)
When directed to a manual, I arrogantly refused to read it, wanting
other people to look it up for me. And that is stretching the truth, to
put it mildly.
At least that's the way I see it.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> It turns out that the answer is 'no', but you will only find that in the
> documentation to Omega, and only by inference learn that Omega does it
> because (La)TeX cannot. It is in *a* manual, but not the one you might
> expect,
Exactly.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> Okay. But it's not working here. That must mean either you're
> different here to the way you usually are; or this newsgroup works
> differently to newsgroups you are used to.
>
Or, since we're dealing with people, not robots, somebody made a mistake.
> You have in fact clearly irritated a fair few regular posters. Think on
> that. *You* think you're being reasonable; but more than one or two
> regulars here disagree.
>
So? I have to do what I think is right. I would think it very cowardly,
pathetic and morally wrong to just take insults with no reaction. You
seem to imply (and you have done so before) that just because I am new,
and these people are regulars, that the normal rules of social conduct
doesn't apply? That they can just insult me groundlessly? I disagree
with that. As long as you don't at least understand (not necessarily
agree with) my point of view, I don't think we will get anywhere. I
think I perfectly understand your points, and I am trying to explain to
you why I don't agree, how I see things differently from you, where I
think mistakes were made. Isn't that the most reasonable way?
> Whether your different to your usual self, or whether you're not adapted
> to the way this newsgroup works, I don't know - but you're clearly
> getting something wrong and what's worse, apparently refusing to
> acknowledge the possibility.
>
No, I don't refuse that possibility. I have in fact countered your
arguments, and tried to explain how I see things, and even asked of
elaboration of what exactly it is that I've done wrong here, which you
haven't answered. The thread has gone roughly like this:
1) I ask a questions
2) I get some answers
3) David Kastrup gives an answer, about the Komascript manual.
4) I don't find that answer useful, as I've explain several times in
reasonable terms, which you haven't disagreed with. So I answer so. I
don't think less of David Kastrup for this reason. I don't insult or
attack him. As a response, David gives an arrogant answer containing
words like "pester" and accusing me groundlessly for not wanting to
examine anything myself etc. Look at the thread. I would bet a lot of
money that most people would find David's response arrogant and insulting.
5) A giant subthread develops with the main theme of me being "wrong",
with no concrete reasons why. The closest thing we have is that I
haven't "read the manual". But I have explained several times, why
reading a manual wasn't appropriate for my question, and we have even
established that many questions are not feasibly answered in a manual.
Now, you may not agree with this (although you haven't disagreed with
it), but it is certainly a valid point. So the main reason for the
thread seams not to be technical but sociological. I am new, so I have
no right to answer a regular in a spiteful manner, no matter how
arrogant he is.
You seem to not acknowledge the possibility of anybody else being wrong.
David Kastrup is a human being, and maybe he was slightly irritated when
he wrote his first arrogant reply in the thread? I don't know.
/David
/David
David Rasmussen
>>
>>It's funny; I think the attitude I've expressed is the only logical and
>>reasonable one. My "attitude" in general goes fine in any other group,
>
>
> *This* *is* *not* *any* *other* *group*
>
> How many times must you be told? 'It's fine over there...' is
> no excuse for not learning how it is done *here*, and never has been.
How "it" is done here? How what is done? You're writing in very general
terms, I was writing about the very specific fact that it is a normal in
any forum to
1) treat eachother fairly, not being arrogant
2) if you are arrogant enough, you will probably get a negative response
So what you're saying is that, in this group, it is ok for David Kastrup
to insult me groundlessly, even though it wouldn't normally ok in any
other group? I don't buy that.
> We do not go to alt.sex.bestiality.barney and demand that they change how
> they react to people, and they don't do it to us. It seems the only person
> who has a problem with that is you. Get over it.
>
I am not talking about such groups, and you know it if you have followed
the thread.
>
> You started with a good question, then continued with 'I won't RTFM'.
NO I DIDN'T. Read the thread again, and read my arguments about why a
manual wasn't the appropriate answer to my question. That I mention
this, doesn't give anybody the right to be arrogant and insulting.
> That is not reasonable behaviour. We (that is, CTT regulars) have spent
> quite some time trying to explain exactly what was wrong with that
> behaviour, and why we don't like it. You called us arrogant and bullies.
> We are tired of it.
>
Then stop it.
>
> We give respect to those who have earned it, and to people who we don't
> know by the benefit of the doubt. You have not earned respect, and we know
> you by now.
>
I don't need your respect (it seems that your respect is not worth much,
to be honest). But I need you to not insult me groundlessly, for me to
stop responding to insults.
>
> We are accusing you of being rude, selfish and arrogant.
>
On what grounds?
> You asked a technical question in a technical group.
Agreed.
> You were given a reference to the answer.
I was given several good answers. And I was pointed in a neutral manner
to a manual. As I have explained _several times_, _I_ didn't think that
a manual was an appropriate answer to my question. I state this, in an
equally neutral manner. And I get a rude response.
> You replied that you couldn't be bothered to RTFM.
Not exactly.
> *This is rude.*
No.
> You were told that this is a basic requirement for understanding the
> system you have just requested information on.
I don't understand what you mean here.
> You started complaining that we are all unreasonable thugs and bullies,
After being thugged and bullied, yes.
> who don't respond to you as you expect, and you seem to be demanding that
> we change to fit your expectations of behaviour.
I never did that. Apart from demanding a sober and neutral tone, if you
expect the same from me.
> *This is selfish and arrogant.*
>
It certainly is not, it is very reasonable. Or would the not-selfish and
arrogant reaction to the bullying and the insults, be to just shut up?
Is that what you mean?
> By continuing to argue your own righteousness in a forum where the numbers
> are one-to-everyone-else, you begin to add stupidity to the list.
>
That's a strange definition of stupidity.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> It depends on the question, doesn't it? If the question is "what is
> acceptable behavior for this unmoderated newsgroup?",
Is that the question?
> than the odd man
> out is wrong, since the majority define acceptable behavior. This is
> the question that most people (including the OP) seem to be
> addressing.
>
I haven't read any formal description of the acceptable behavior in this
group, but I can't imagine that I disagree with any of it. On the other
hand, I can't imagine that acceptable behavior is to be groundlessly
arrogant. And if so, for whom is it allowed?
I think you are mixing things up here. I am _not_ talking about it being
ok to not want to read a manual when it is necesary. I have never said
anything like that. That is not acceptable behavior.
I _have_, on the other hand, said that acceptable behavior is _not_
being arrogant and insulting. _I_ didn't start that.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
>>In this case, I was having a fine time with David Magda telling me what
>>he had done with his thesis. David Kastrup enters, and tells me to read
>>the manual for Komascript. I tell him that I don't think that is an
>>appropriate solution for the problem I am having, at this stage.
>
> No. Your response was:
>
> "It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300 pages
> of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use."
>
How is that different?
> That's hardly polite.
What?? It is totally neutral! There was even a smiley in that post, that
you have cut out. This is in fact the crux of the matter:
Do you really think that this post of mine, deserves the response that
David Kastrup gave to it? Because that was the first insulting post in
the thread, and the one the I am responding to.
> Someone points you to the *definitive* source of
> information on Komascript -- the ONLY place you can see its full range
> of capability -- and you call it irrelevant.
>
Yes, but what was my question? As I have explained several times
elsewhere, a manual isn't the most feasible answer to any question or
problem. A lot of people would agree with that, I am sure. That isn't to
say that it was a ridiculous suggestion. I just didn't find it suitable
for all the reasons I have given. I still don't. And I answered in a
neutral manner.
> Mind you, I don't think your original question was unreasonable. There
> are a lot of packages available and sometimes the only way to really
> find what you want is to ask a group of experienced users. However, I do
> think the way you handled some of the responses *was* unreasonable. If
> you can't be bothered to skim a manual, you're going to have a tough
> time learning LaTeX.
>
I can be bothered to skim a manual. I do it everyday. But read my
original question. Even if you disagree about whether the manual is
suitable in this case or not, I think you should respect that I have my
take/judgment/opinion about this. And me having this opinion, certainly
doesn't warrant an arrogant post about me "pestering" people etc. Never.
>
> Well, word of advice to a LaTeX newbie: Tutorials for packages are rare.
Okay.
> PSTricks and the AMS math packages are about the only ones I've used
> that have anything approaching a tutorial. If you *really* want to know
> what Komascript (or memoir, for that matter) can do, you pretty much
> *have* to skim the manual.
If this is true, then that would have been a nice answer to have gotten
when I dismissed the manual.
But you have to understand, I didn't want to learn the Komascript
package. I wanted to know how to easily change the layout of my standard
LaTeX-document. In learning, I always think that a topdown approach is
the best way. That means that it (for me) is not feasible to read every
manual to every package that might be helpful. I would rather try get a
good overview of my possibilities. Which is what I was trying to achieve
at the time. I think it is reasonably clear from my postings, but if
not, I am sorry.
>
>>My questions _aren't_ answered in any document.
>
> Well, if you believe this, and you believe that every answer posted here
> is in a manual somewhere (as you asserted in another post), then why did
> you ask your questions here? Isn't that a waste of your time?
>
Yes and no. My "question" was one of getting a good overview of my
possibilities. Questions like that are not answered in traditional
manuals. On the other hand, the answer can of course be synthesized from
a range of documentation. That was what I meant. Remember, I did not
ask some concrete question about Komascript that could just be looked up
in the index, like "what does this or that command do?" etc.
/David
David Kastrup
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > Okay.... Try: using LaTeX, how can I create a list of
> > user-supplied items, and then examine that list to see if it
> > contains a given element? Or analyse the list into single items?
> >
>
> Why wouldn't that be answered in some combination of documentation?
> Is it magic?
It is not needed often enough. Anyway, if you stop making ridiculous
claims about things you have no clue about, you don't need to act
surprised when people tell you examples.
> > That's a real job I wanted to do for a real LaTeX package that I
> > really released - eurofont - and I got the answers by asking on
> > this newsgroup. That job ain't covered in the manual, unless you
> > mean in the broad sense of `everything one needs to learn to do
> > that job is contained in the TeXbook', which you'll know isn't
> > exactly helpful if you've ever looked at the blasted thing.
> >
>
> That's exactly what I mean. Not all questions can be feasibly
> answered by looking in a manual. This thread have gotten way out of
> hand long ago, but I can see that several people use the standard
> argument of "you refused to RTFM". That's a gross
> simplification. What I asked was not the kind of thing that is
> feasibly answered in a manual.
You asked about how to customize the look of your document. And
exactly _that_ is answered _extensively_ in the documentation of
KOMAscript which you refused to look at.
You are still babbling self-righteously about things about which you
have no clue, and where it is entirely your own fault that you remain
clueless. At least save us your gloating about how unnecessary it is
to get a clue with Usenet around.
David Kastrup
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > Okay. But it's not working here. That must mean either you're
> > different here to the way you usually are; or this newsgroup works
> > differently to newsgroups you are used to.
> >
>
> Or, since we're dealing with people, not robots, somebody made a
> mistake.
>
> > You have in fact clearly irritated a fair few regular posters.
> > Think on that. *You* think you're being reasonable; but more than
> > one or two regulars here disagree.
> >
>
> So? I have to do what I think is right.
Says who? Even oversensitive people can fit in with a reasonably
diverse crowd if they don't make an ass of having to be right every
time. Particularly when they don't even have a clue what they are
talking about in the first place.
> I would think it very cowardly, pathetic and morally wrong to just
> take insults with no reaction.
You obviously thing it very cowardly, pathetic and morally wrong to
reflect about your acts, too.
> You seem to imply (and you have done so before) that just because I
> am new, and these people are regulars, that the normal rules of
> social conduct doesn't apply?
The normal rules of social conduct are _defined_ by the conduct of
regulars. Social conduct does not exist in thin air.
> That they can just insult me groundlessly? I disagree with that.
I could easily insult you groundlessly if I wanted to. Up to now I
both fail to see where I _insulted_ you (getting indignant and
insulting are two different things), and where I acted groundlessly.
> As long as you don't at least understand (not necessarily agree
> with) my point of view, I don't think we will get anywhere.
Your pathetically unreflected and egotistical point of view has been
refuted for longer than you even participated on Usenet, but you
refuse to let yourself be referred to any of the standard sources
where basic Usenet behavior is explained, and you refuse to listen
when it is cast in different words for your sake, too.
Your steadfast refusal to either read or listen to the information
you need, both technical and social, is not increasing the impression
of competence you project in either area.
> 1) I ask a questions
> 2) I get some answers
> 3) David Kastrup gives an answer, about the Komascript manual.
> 4) I don't find that answer useful, as I've explain several times in
> reasonable terms, which you haven't disagreed with. So I answer
> so. I don't think less of David Kastrup for this reason. I don't
> insult or attack him. As a response, David gives an arrogant answer
> containing words like "pester" and accusing me groundlessly for not
> wanting to examine anything myself etc. Look at the thread. I would
> bet a lot of money that most people would find David's response
> arrogant and insulting.
A lot of those that know about the topic in question? A lot of those
that have participated here long enough to see the bad effects your
stance has on the morale of posters and package writers?
Instead of bolstering your ego with the outcome of mysterious bets
with mysterious persons, why don't you ask yourself why _nobody_, I
repeat _nobody_ has come to your defense here?
While I may be a self-righteous asshole, you don't give any ground on
that aspect, and you lose on your cause.
> 5) A giant subthread develops with the main theme of me being
> "wrong", with no concrete reasons why. The closest thing we have
> is that I haven't "read the manual". But I have explained several
> times, why reading a manual wasn't appropriate for my question,
> and we have even established that many questions are not feasibly
> answered in a manual.
But those particular questions you had _were_ answered in the
manual. I have read it. You haven't. So just shut up complaining
about the manual you refused to read even when told that the desired
answers were in there.
> You seem to not acknowledge the possibility of anybody else being
> wrong. David Kastrup is a human being, and maybe he was slightly
> irritated when he wrote his first arrogant reply in the thread? I
> don't know.
You don't know whether I was irritated in that reply? Another
impressive display of social competence. Read my original reply
again, then think hard.
Harri Haanpaa
stop this useless flame war. This will be my only post to this thread.
1. David R. asks about whether it is possible and how to change the look
and feel of a LaTeX document. He does not specify very exactly what he
wants to change, he admits that he is a relative newbie to LaTeX.
2. He is pointed to scrguien.dvi, which contains documentation about
packages that allow a lot of customization.
3. He does not find scrguien.dvi relevant for his query.
4. A lot of people get mad at him.
Now, I hope that the people who got mad at David R. can agree that
scrguien.dvi is probably a bit heavy for a newbie. Even though it might be
a very good answer to a user that's a bit more experienced, a newbie may
find it very hard to understand much of what is going on in that document.
I suggest that a better answer could have been: Yes, you can customize
most everything, but it's not entirely trivial: you probably need to
find some suitable package that does what you want to do, and there
are lots of packages available for doing various things. For now, it's
better that you write the thesis, and when you have got a feel for LaTeX
by writing the thesis and possibly have more specific customizations in
mind, come back to customizing the look. It wouldn't hurt if you follow
this group while writing the thesis to get an idea about what it takes
to do certain kinds of customizations.
This probably sounds a bit patronizing towards David R., but I really
think that it is good advice. At least it is the best advice I can
offer, not being much of a LaTeX guru myself... With that approach you
would at least avoid the trap of spending weeks fiddling with various
customizations when he should be writing his thesis.
All it takes for a flame war is a bit of unfortunate phrasing that can be
misunderstood, and when egos get involved, things escalate.
Best regards,
Harri Haanpää
David Rasmussen
>
> I think you'd better re-read the thread. You've had plenty.
>
I don't think so. I have had accusations about not wanting to read a
manual, which have nothing to do with the problem here.
>
>>>So you already know everything that can be known about Usenet,
>>
>>Definately not.
>
> It sounds like you're claiming that you do.
>
Really??! Can you elaborate on that? Where do you read that?
>>
>>Do you really think so? I disagree.
>
> I don't think you are, but you seemed to be claiming that you were in
> such a position.
>
No.
>
>>I don't think so. I admit, though, that I have made
>>sarcastic responses to some of the arrogant things being said to me.
>
> You've made what seem to me to be quite obnoxious responses to some
> reasonable posts. What are these allegedly arrogant things which have
> been said to you? I can't see any.
>
David Kastrup made a post about me "pestering" people etc. That post,
which I felt was not necesary, got a matching reply from me. That reply
have gotten loads of replies and subreplies, including yours, which are
all negative and accusing in tone. I find them all arrogant.
>
> What interpretation is one to place on your words in
> Message-ID: <bqo040$hj8$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>? I can't see the point in
> re-posting it entirely - but really, what *do* you expect people to make
> of you if, in response to valid criticism of your behaviour, you say
> things like:
>
> `I know how
> Usenet works, and I know how the normal rules of social conduct of any
> forum.'
>
> or
>
> `do you really expect me to take advices about Usenet given to me,
> seriously?'
>
> [snip]
>
What do you expect me to make of arrogant remarks about obvious truths
of Usenet? It isn't serious, and you know it. What would you answer in
such a case? If I accused you of a similar thing? I would like to know.
>
> No. The cardinal sin in this newsgroup is refusing to try the offered
> advice.
That is a sin? I am not allowed to use my own judgment? I am sure that I
can find thousands of posts in this group, of people not blindly
following an advice, because they think it is not what they need for
some reason, without a giant subthread emerging.
> Basically, if someone here says you need to read some documentation, you
> almost certainly do need to read it and you will almost certainly
> benefit greatly from doing so.
But there is a very big difference in saying "scrguien.dvi exists" and a
more elaborate answer; especially when my question is one of getting an
overview, not getting an answer to a concrete technical question.
> So reading it is what you need to do:
> most emphatically. If you want to get best use out of LaTeX, you've
> *got* to read lots of docs.
I have gathered that much :) I am reading about LaTeX everyday, and I am
used to having to read loads of technical literature, so I wouldn't
expect anything less.
> The initial time investment pays off, I can
> assure you. I've been using LaTeX for far too long, and - well, any
> time I take the trouble to read a new chunk of documentation, my life
> gets easier.
I guess I am looking for an overview, a top down approach so that I at
least know where to look or read if I need anything. In my experience,
structuring one's approach to learning a new subject, can significantly
cut down on the time it takes to get a solid overview. That's also why
"scrguien.dvi exists", _for me_, didn't and doesn't seem exactly like
what I needed. I might be wrong, but I used my own judgment.
> One thing to bear in mind: the average user doesn't need
> to understand everything. A lot of the time, the docs you'll be reading
> will give you a lot of useful background information which you don't
> need to get to grips with in detail, and will also include lots of stuff
> you don't need to pay much attention to at all at the moment - time's
> always pressing, so when you read LaTeX docs, learn how to skip bits and
> skim intelligently.
>
If university has taught be one thing, it is to skip "irrelevant" stuff,
intelligently :)
>
> Fair enough. You need to learn how this newsgroup works. You've not
> been the recipient of harsh uncalled for arrogance: in *your* arrogance,
> you decided you knew how to interpreted the responses you got.
It is arrogant to assume that I can interpret the responses I get? Who
else, if not my self, should interpret them for me then? I don't
understand your point.
>
>>And what is my "mode of behavior"? What exactly are you criticizing me for?
>
> Charging around like a bull in a china shop.
>
That's not very constructive or concrete... It is of no use to me,
sorry. Aren't we trying to communicate? Or are we just trying to be
hostile? Is this a game? I am trying to explain my point of view, and at
the same time understand everybody elses point of view. If you're not
interested, please don't reply to me. It is oneway communication then.
>
> Seems to me as if you do. You said you know how Usenet works, with the
> implication (to me at least) that the normal operation of this newsgroup
> - which is what you were complaining about - needed changing.
>
Not at all. In what context did I say that I knew how Usenet works? I
was replying.
>
> Refusing to read some documentation as I recall.
>
Oh yeah, it's a sin not to follow every advice given. I used my
judgment, which I have explained in great lengths. Some of you even seem
to understand my point of the difference between a manual and other
kinds of documentation, and my point of trying to get an overview rather
than getting a technical question answered.
To me, the line of questioning and advice went something similar to
this, if it was in the C++ world (which I know better than the LaTeX world):
Q: "I am trying to figure out which programming language I should use
for this problem: '...'. Can C++ do that?"
A: "Bjarne Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language" exists."
>
> Oh god I can't be bothered to dig it out. I recall you missing the
> point somewhere and refusing to reassess your understanding.
>
That's mildly vague, I think. But let it rest, if you will.
>>
>>Read your above paragraph. See it from my point of view:
>>I complain about arrogance.
>
>
> No, see it from *my* point of view:
If you're not willing to try to understand my point of view, I see no
reason to discuss anything. I am certainly trying to understand your
point of view. For me this is not a game where I am trying to convince
you. I am trying to meet you. I know I am not unreasonable, and I don't
assume you are, so if there is a disagreement, it can be pinpointed.
> you complain about arrogance while
> displaying grotesque arrogance yourself. Understand that point.
>
I don't understand it. Countering arrogance is not arrogant.
>
>>That means I think some people are arrogant in their answers to me.
>
> See it from my point of view: I didn't see anyone treating you
> arrogantly.
Can you say, honestly, that you don't find David Kastrups answer about
me "pestering people" arrogant? And many of the harsh replies that have
followed, including the cheap ones refering to the obvious rules of
Usenet, they aren't arrogant either? If so, we have a very different
undestanding of the concept.
> Understand that point: you have not been badly treated but
> have simply met the normal practices of this newsgroup. You come here,
> and you preach to us about our behaviour, when you - being a newcomer -
> cannot see what our behaviour means to us, the regular users of this
> newsgroup? That's arrogance on your part.
>
I think here you are talking about the "normal" everyday behavior of the
group, which I haven't questioned. Specifically, I think you are talking
about the fact, that when necesary, people should RTFM. I haven't
questioned that either. I have questioned the arrogant (as I see it)
posts that followed from that first arrogant post. And I am arrogant in
questioning that? Do you really mean that?
>
> See it from my point of view: you have behaved arrogantly and you got
> off moderately lightly all things considered, *and* you got useful
> technical assistance. So what are you complaining about?
>
We not getting any further if you are just going to say that my reaction
to what _I_ felt was arrogance, was arrogant. Can't you see that?
Assuming that everyone here is reasonable, the only solution I can see,
is that David misunderstood me and took it for arrogance, when he posted
the "pestering" thing. Or I misunderstood him when he wrote that, and
took it for arrogance.
>
>>Can you explain to me, given my point of view (I think some people are
>>being arrogant), what should be my response then?
>
> Re-assess the situation in the light of new information? Understand how
> it is that you've come across as arrogant (etc).
>
I think I have tried doing that. Specifically, I have gone to great
lengths to explain how I see things, so that people could pinpoint where
they disagree.
>
> I'm not sure why it seems like that. One point to consider is that if
> the postings of certain people strike you as objectionable, and yet
> those postings are made by respected regulars here, it's entirely
> possible that you've misunderstood something.
Completely true. But it is also possible that someone else has
misunderstood something. And there is also a huge sociological thing
happening. For one thing, people seem to have agreed on that the problem
is that I didn't want to read the manual. Regardless of the reasons I
have given for why _I_ think that a manual was not the answer.
> Being a regular doesn't
> make you beyond criticism; but if you're a regular, then your behaviour
> is probably considered normal for the newsgroup (although I'm an
> intermittent regular here, I suspect my behaviour isn't considered quite
> so okay, but what the hell - they can't shoot me via an ISDN line yet).
>
:) I thought everybody had DSL lines now...
>
> No, to learn about the newsgroup before shooting your mouth off.
>
Again I think you're confusing the normal everyday workings of this
group, which I haven't said anything about, and the fact that from _my_
point of view _I_ got an arrogant reply. That is what I don't believe is
normal in this group. I don't think you do either.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
>
> I suggest that a better answer could have been: Yes, you can customize
> most everything, but it's not entirely trivial: you probably need to
> find some suitable package that does what you want to do, and there
> are lots of packages available for doing various things. For now, it's
> better that you write the thesis, and when you have got a feel for LaTeX
> by writing the thesis and possibly have more specific customizations in
> mind, come back to customizing the look. It wouldn't hurt if you follow
> this group while writing the thesis to get an idea about what it takes
> to do certain kinds of customizations.
>
That's what I've decided now, after some thinking :)
> This probably sounds a bit patronizing towards David R.,
I don't think so.
/David
David Kastrup
> Here's my take on this. I'm hoping all participants can accept this and
> stop this useless flame war. This will be my only post to this thread.
>
> 1. David R. asks about whether it is possible and how to change the look
> and feel of a LaTeX document. He does not specify very exactly what he
> wants to change, he admits that he is a relative newbie to LaTeX.
>
> 2. He is pointed to scrguien.dvi, which contains documentation about
> packages that allow a lot of customization.
>
> 3. He does not find scrguien.dvi relevant for his query.
Correction: he says he does not even want to look at it. It is
relevant for his query, and is well-organized.
> 4. A lot of people get mad at him.
>
> Now, I hope that the people who got mad at David R. can agree that
> scrguien.dvi is probably a bit heavy for a newbie.
So he can ask when he has a problem with it. Instead he tells us he
will not take a look at it (it has a chapter of its own dealing with
customizing the look of the document, exactly what he has been asking
for) and that he is not likely to even use any of the information he
has been asking about.
> Even though it might be a very good answer to a user that's a bit
> more experienced, a newbie may find it very hard to understand much
> of what is going on in that document.
This is idle speculation: he has prouded himself on not even taking a
look.
> All it takes for a flame war is a bit of unfortunate phrasing that
> can be misunderstood, and when egos get involved, things escalate.
Thanks for your attempt at deescalation, but I don't think David R. is
lacking clarity in his statements.
David Kastrup
> R. H. Allen wrote:
> > No. Your response was:
> > "It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300
> > pages of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use."
> >
>
> How is that different?
>
> > That's hardly polite.
>
> What?? It is totally neutral! There was even a smiley in that post,
> that you have cut out.
If I write "it isn't terribly relevant, since I shall have shot and
ripped out your cat's entrails by tomorrow" it is also totally neutral
and polite. In short: it was not the tone, but the content of what
you wrote that was highly annoying and contraproductive.
> > Someone points you to the *definitive* source of information on
> > Komascript -- the ONLY place you can see its full range of
> > capability -- and you call it irrelevant.
>
> Yes, but what was my question?
You don't even remember? You asked about various possibilities to
give your document different looks and layouts. The KOMAscript
manual has very specific and detailed chapters describing the
possibilities to do exactly that.
> As I have explained several times elsewhere, a manual isn't the most
> feasible answer to any question or problem.
In this case, it was.
> A lot of people would agree with that, I am sure. That isn't to say
> that it was a ridiculous suggestion. I just didn't find it suitable
> for all the reasons I have given.
You have given no reason exact diffuse waffle along the line "manuals
tend not to be too good and have the right information". And you
can't give a reason since you have not looked at that manual. I
have. And that is the reason why I told you that the information is
in there.
> I still don't.
Because you refuse to take a clue. That's fine, but then don't keep
asking for one.
> > Mind you, I don't think your original question was
> > unreasonable. There are a lot of packages available and sometimes
> > the only way to really find what you want is to ask a group of
> > experienced users. However, I do think the way you handled some of
> > the responses *was* unreasonable. If you can't be bothered to skim
> > a manual, you're going to have a tough time learning LaTeX.
>
> I can be bothered to skim a manual. I do it everyday.
So why do you refuse to skim the definite manual about the very
problems you have been asking about?
> But read my original question.
I read it.
> Even if you disagree about whether the manual is suitable in this
> case or not, I think you should respect that I have my
> take/judgment/opinion about this.
Since your judgment is not based on reading the manual, it is a piece
of worthless crap. The very least I expect from a critic is to
expose himself to what he criticizes.
> But you have to understand, I didn't want to learn the Komascript
> package. I wanted to know how to easily change the layout of my
> standard LaTeX-document.
And that is dealt with in special chapters in the KOMAscript manual.
Again, you don't even know what a bloody royal fool you make of
yourself because you refuse to get clued in.
> In learning, I always think that a topdown approach is the best
> way. That means that it (for me) is not feasible to read every
> manual to every package that might be helpful.
KOMAscript is not a package. It is a set of document classes
designed for providing flexibility in the appearance. This
flexibility is documented in the manual.
You are being a bloody idiot and not even noticing it.
> >>My questions _aren't_ answered in any document.
> > Well, if you believe this, and you believe that every answer
> > posted here is in a manual somewhere (as you asserted in another
> > post), then why did you ask your questions here? Isn't that a
> > waste of your time?
> >
>
> Yes and no. My "question" was one of getting a good overview of my
> possibilities.
Which is given in the KOMAscript manual which you refuse to read.
> Questions like that are not answered in traditional manuals. On the
> other hand, the answer can of course be synthesized from a range of
> documentation. That was what I meant. Remember, I did not ask some
> concrete question about Komascript that could just be looked up in
> the index, like "what does this or that command do?" etc.
No, you asked a question about "how can one customize document
appearance" which can be looked up in the table of contents as well
as the index of scrguien.dvi.
If there was a prize for "most contraproductive approach to useful
technical and human resources", you would definitely be a hot
contender.
David Kastrup
> If university has taught be one thing, it is to skip "irrelevant"
> stuff, intelligently :)
So far you are steadfastly insisting on skipping relevant stuff,
stupidly.
Michele Dondi
<david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> This is your conclusion. It may well be that "some people will do
>> almost anything to start a fight", but this claim does not apply to
>> anybody here, as of my experience, now some years old.
>
>Maybe it doesn't in general, but it applies to some people in this
>thread. Tell me, with a straight face, that you think the tone in this
>thread is ok? It is not, by me, nor will it ever be. Sorry.
As a matter of fact it happened with you. It happens. Occasionally. On
*rare* occasions... this cannot be a pure coincidence!
And the efforts people are spending to try to *explain* you why they
reacted the way they did cannot be a pure coincidence either!
Despite what you may think (wrt both following points),
(i) meta-discussions are not useless: as Anno Siegel (IMHO) correctly
wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc (after a similar "clash"),
I think that these discussions do serve a purpose, besides informing
particular posters of the error of their ways (which indeed often
doesn't work). It is necessary, from time to time, to make sure
there is a rough consensus among the regulars and lurkers about what
is acceptable behavior and what isn't. These meta-threads help
establish that consensus.
(ii) FWIW, I do *not* like them, not that much. Not to the point of
reading *all* of this thread; OTOH I'm not killfiling you (now)
because as I said in the last post, I do *not* think you are a crank
or a troll (you can see an on-topic post of mine, that was ignored,
BTW). Only, you *seem to* be blatantly refusing to understand what a
helpful resource this NG is. All this, only for some ill-founded
proudness (but then that is just MHO!)... WHY?!?
I underlined "seem to" above, because of course it is just my
impression. But it *seems to* be the impression of quite a lot of
other people here. What's up then? Do you really think that a
conspiracy especially designed against the person of David Rasmussen
is being set up here?
Let us accept the concept that "some people will do almost anything to
start a fight"... don't you think they're a bit far too many,
especially taking into account that a fight has not been started for
months now? You can check with Google...
Also, you *seem to* be a great expert of usenet and an enthusiast user
of its resources, but you're actually, concretely, deliberately
wasting them in this particular instance.
To answer your other remarks I can only try to sum up the first steps
of this "incident" (quotations slightly edited):
STEP1:
> I don't really know. I will have to experiment. It seems that
> scrbook from komascript will do this.
>
> But I guess it isn't too hard to redefine the looks of chapter and
> section headings, and of the main text? I know next to nothing
> about LaTeX though, so I wouldn't know how to.
scrguien.dvi exists.
I don't see how this can fail to be good advice and how it could be
harsh. It's concise, certainly, but not harsh: it means: "even if you
know next to nothing about LaTeX, you can read the relevant docs to
achieve what you're aiming at".
STEP2:
You answered:
> scrguien.dvi exists.
Can't argue with that :)
It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300
pages of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use.
*Your comment* is not relevant. For *he* would *not* have given that
suggestion, *had it not been relevant*.
He didn't say: "become a TeXpert and then you'll be allowed to talk
with us"! He pointed you to pertinent, relevant documentation, and he
must have judged that consulting the *relevant portions* of it would
have been compatible with your requirements. You, as a newbie, should
have accepted his judgement or otherwise have checked wether that was
really the case, and in case it wasn't, then and only then, politely
complain that "understanding wether/how/how easily that can be done
with KOMA classes seems to require an excessive effort in studying the
classes themselves for a preliminary 'exploration'".
STEP3:
He answered:
> It isn't terribly relevant, though, as I am not going to read 300
> pages of documentation for something I'm not sure I will use.
It has a good table of contents and an index. Instead of using them
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What that you should have known in the first place. What that you
would have known, *had you tried to check* (by giving a peek into that
document. And no, not only looking at the number of pages!) if you
were given a good advice, rather than *assuming* you were not!
you are willing to pester hundreds of people with questions that are
readily and accurately answered in detail in the obvious places in a
manual.
Now he becomes deliberately harsh, and had he not been, maybe, all
this would not have happened. But you were harsh in the first place
with your "proud" answer. Put it the way you like: you said "this was
not a good advice". What's worst, you said so, without even checking
if that was actually the case, period.
Michele
--
>It's because the universe was programmed in C++.
No, no, it was programmed in Forth. See Genesis 1:12:
"And the earth brought Forth ..."
- Robert Israel on sci.math, thread "Why numbers?"
Michele Dondi
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>I'd spotted that already. If laser printed stuff doesn't last either in
>my wallet or my filing cabinet, it's crap for archiving.
I suspect that this follow-up of mine may well be irrelevant. Though
I'd like to add this: for charcoal drawings there's a fixating spray.
Maybe something similar is available for electronic prints or generic
documents...
Just my 2(Euro)cents,