On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:23:22 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> That's the one thing I /really do/ like about you. You seem to care
> about and take care with proper English usage.
Hi Cybe R. Wizard,
I see _all_ your posts - I don't respond to them all - out of propriety.
Thank you for recognizing I have been a good citizen of alt.usage.english
for decades on end. <
https://alt.usage.english.narkive.com/>
in that I strive to spell, punctuate, & "grammarize" sentences correctly.
More to the point though...
I'm always striving to IMPROVE upon our combined tribal knowledge.
o Mine;
o And yours (even unbeknownst to you, as you can see below).
For example, I asked for help on this very question you brought up!
<
https://alt.usage.english.narkive.com/IYRnAbiZ/why-on-earth-do-we-abbreviate-alli-so-often-to-save-1-character>
I'm DIFFERENT from almost everyone you have ever met in your life
(in a bunch of ways, the COMBINATION of which makes me unusual).
For an example, I maintain a Usenet STRATEGY which I call the "FAQ model".
Where, by design, my TACTICS fit _that_ strategy.
If you don't COMPREHEND my strategy & tactics - you won't understand me.
For example, most Usenet posters use what I call the "chit-chat model".
o They post 99% to other people's threads, & only 1% to their own threads.
o Each post contains, usually, very little technical information (normally)
o For _that_ model, WHO you are is often more important than WHAT you say
I use a completely different model, which I call the "Q&A model".
o I post 99% to my Q&A threads, & only 1% to other people's threads
o Each post contains, usually, well-cited factual information (normally)
o For _that_ model, WHAT you say are is more important than WHO you are
You'll note, for example, that most of you who use the "chitchat" model,
care greatly about the identity of whom you're dealing with - whereas - I
don't give one whit about whom I'm dealing with - other than when they're
wasting our time - in that I can't forget them (much as I would like to
perhaps).
My strategy is to FURTHER our tribal knowledge, by obtaining technical
answers to technical questions. My tactics fit that strategy (for the most
part).
For example:
o Is this (Marek assisted) Internet privacy procedure as good as I can make it?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/Ih1TMsMjV_M/zYlVS6YOEgAJ>
To be blunt, most of my questions either have a single technical answer,
or, as is often the case, there is no known answer to my questions.
Hence, most of my threads SHOULD be a single post (for those that just have
no known answers), or, they should be a "few" posts, like this thread is,
if we subtract the idiocy from the likes of people like FredW.
This thread is a GOOD example of the Usenet Q&A model working well:
a. Asking a question that doesn't have a well-known answer (it seems)
b. Together, deriving the answer (mostly from Mike Easter's help)
c. And then summarizing the findings (to add to the tribal knowledge)
This thread is another good example of the Q&A model working well:
o What algorithm would you use to find the "best" file by speed?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/WmihnKr-ZyI/1O1msUyLCQAJ>
As is this typical Q&A thread where the Usenet use model works well:
o How do I stop DNS LEAKS in Ubuntu with wicd as the network manager?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/X2H2H8CnqS8/SzmHvNjLDQAJ>
Another example of a GOOD Q&A Usenet thread, for example, is this:
o Ping Steve Crook & other free server admins: How/why are Avast headers & sig added to these messages?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/a8o3srYBw0U/6wkedyq9BAAJ>
Notice how we worked together, in this case, mostly Marek Novotny & me.
Some of those Q&A threads don't come to a firm conclusion:
o What would you suggest for reliable servers to ping for connectivity
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/4cRfRFIgQdU/4Hx5mOTPBgAJ>
But most advance our tribal knowledge, step by step, by step, by step:
o Two questions for Marek about the operation of the vpnstatus script
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/G-84_RC0ePA/F2jn48ObBAAJ>
Where I'm usually excited to the point that I just want to share with all!
o Script inspired by Marek for changing the name of vpn files
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/fEVBFUDAhvE/keRxje0GBwAJ>
And, where I'm sometimes so clueless that I desperately need your help:
o Can you help interpret this wireshark tcpdump pcap output?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/KANMFLA_RQg/e7RVnSM_DwAJ>
Here's another case where I'm out of my league - so I ask for help:
o How do you tell what kind of VPN when you're in a VPN session?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/79Z_OaThLCA/Qz6hwrr4EwAJ>
And, where, often, I report "issues" with things, asking for solutions:
o Report of potential bug/enh in vpnstatus.sh & tbird.sh scripts
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/Uc3yqYZlL0Y/sTP29UsVDQAJ>
And where, in general, VERY FEW PEOPLE actually have usable answers:
o Report of potential bug/enh in vpnstatus.sh & tbird.sh scripts
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/Uc3yqYZlL0Y/sTP29UsVDQAJ>
Now, lots of times, nobody knows more than I do when I ask a question.
o What free unlimited bandwidth proxy-based browsers exist for Ubuntu Linux?
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/I78Sg-TQIUo/-mO1ddQVBAAJ>
And that's OK. Those threads should be short (ideally, a single post).
But, most of the time, I can COMBINE our knowledge to write a SOLUTION:
o Result of 1 year of work improving free VPN for Linux users
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/j5nKzZs9O-4/nU13HkivBwAJ>
Where some threads consist purely of those added-value solutions:
o Free openvpn config using efficient scripts (please improve so all benefit)
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/IXT9Eblx3iw/2D8Tta06FgAJ>
I could go on (and on) for, oh, I don't know ... THOUSANDS of tutorials (I
don't count them - but I generally write at least one or two or three a
week - not all of which do I post to Usenet as I'm well know on about a
dozen topic-specific web sites where I post my DIYs & Tutorials galore).
Having said all of that, what irks me are the utterly incomprehensibly
idiotic comments such as those you see from Dan Purgert, you, and FredW in
this thread (and where I can list thousands in other threads), where, I
simply ask these people if THEY contribute to the thread with their utterly
idiotic drivel.
I do this STRATEGICALLY, not to save the current thread, since I believe
once the trolls show up in any thread, like flies at a picnic, it's already
ruined (where I bluntly liken it to the trolls shitting on the potluck
picnic table that is Usenet) - but - to save the NEXT thread.
That is, if I make it "not fun" for YOU, Cybe R. Wizard, to troll, you've
ALREADY ruined THIS thread by your trolls - but - I hope to make you aware
that I will ALWAYS call you out on your trolls (like I did in this thread).
I do that - on purpose - to make it more expensive (i.e., "less fun") for
you and those like you to play your worthless silly little games.
Bear in mind I'm EXPLAINING my tactics to support my strategy, so I'm sort
of breaking my rule responding to like posts in like manner - in that I
don't "think" your most recent post that I'm responding to is a troll - but
- it's clear as the air we breathe that your INITIAL post to this thread
was your attempt to shit on the table of the potluck picnic that is Usenet.
You're shocked, I'm sure, that I called you out on your trolling;
but you really should simply realize that I'm CONSISTENT in my tactics
which support my strategy.
My strategy is to learn & further our combined tribal knowledge.
My tactic is to ask a question - manage the thread - and then leave.
When the trolls inevitably arrive - I assume that Q&A thread is already
ruined just as if the trolls shat' on the Potluck Picnic Table as their
contribution to Usenet - so I simply make it "expensive" (i.e., "less fun")
for the trolls to play their silly little games.
One thing is going to change though, moving forward, which is that I'm
going to realize that "some people" are not only incredibly stupid (which I
already knew), but they're literally incapable of comprehending even the
simplest of facts. There is a thread already on that topic so I belabor it
not here...
o I just belatedly realized why adults can't communicate with Jolly Roger & nospam & Alan Baker & Snit - because they're too far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/4Wb5i0W3nOo>