The Young Man and the Beach

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tom Christiansen

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Once upon a time, a sharp young man opens the window from his cottage and
contemplates a morning stroll. The day is clear and crisp, and the sea
air comes wafting up to town, inviting dalliance instead of work. So he
chooses a route that will take him down to the beach. It's been some time
since he's visited the beach, but as a child, he and his friends used to
cavort amongst waves and sand every day, delighting in the sea spume.
He wonders whether his boyhood friends still frequent their old haunt.

As he takes the path down to the water, he comes across a gypsy woman in
dirty but colorful rags, accompanied by her similarly attired children.
Crying out in plaintive supplication, she beseeches, "Young sir, I have
no job from which I might garner wages to feed my two hungry children.
You who are so fortunate and fine, can you not find it in your heart
to spare some of what you so obviously have in abundance to help us
who have nothing? It will mean so little to you, but so much to us.
Surely you can do something."

Touched by her plight, the man astounds the desperate woman by doling
out a few shillings. She thanks him profusely, nearly tearfully, and
she gives him a tiny, hand-crafted toy to eventually pass on to his
own children. He continues on his way, happy to have brought the woman
tears of relief and joy.

After no more than a score of yards further down the path, the young
man is stopped by a barefoot boy, who makes a request similar to the
one just heard. However, as he has no more shillings to spare, nor
even pennies, the man breaks in two the loaf of bread he was carrying for
his own repast, and he gives the bright-eyed youngster fully half of
what he has. The boy's eyes widen in surprise, and with a brief thank
you and good day, the lad scampers off to gnaw upon the crust.

Not more than a few minute pass by, when from behind him, the young
man hears something running up to him very quickly. He turns about
just in time to be knocked from his feet by an impish knave who was
unable to stop in time. As they pick themselves up and regard each
other, it strikes the young man that this underfed urchin must be none
other than the brother or cousin of other boy whom he just gave half a
loaf of bread. Without so much as an apology, though, this second boy
bursts out, "They said you have bread. I'm hungry. Give it to me."
The young man doesn't know what to do, but decides that today isn't the
day to deny charity to those in greater need than himself.

But as he reaches into his rucksack to withdraw the remaining half-loaf,
the impetuous beggar quickly jumps up and seizes the bread, then dashes
off along the sand. There's not even time to point out that the tidal
pools hold a veritable bounty of food if the boy would but look there.
The young man would even have demonstrated which cockles were the
tastiest, but now it's too late. So more than a bit miffed by this
ungrateful event, the young man sets off to complete his interrupted
jaunt, no longer sure the beach is what it used to be.

As he begins his trek back up from the shore, an able-bodied young gypsy,
proclaiming himself the father of seven suckling babes, implores the
distracted stroller to render unto him help such as was given to those
who preceded. Now lacking both coins and bread, the young man wonders
what to do, but then he remembers handbills he'd read posted all
about the town.

"Go to the lumberyard near the edge of town. They need many more strong
hands to help build the new coach station scheduled to begin within the
fortnight. Perchance there you will find work to feed your desperate
family. The station might even need a porter." Outwardly displeased
by this answer, the gypsy replies, "But I am hungry now. I need
money now. I do not have the leisure of waiting a fortnight before I
can eat. Can you not you give anything to me as you gave to my sons?"

The young man says that he is sorry, but that he has done the very best
he can, and suggests checking the lumberyard anyway. Obviously not
very happy by advice instead of tangibles, the gypsy makes disparaging
class-related remarks behind him as the increasingly flustered young
man hurries off the beach.

But he does not escape unscathed; no fewer than thirteen more similar
mendicants accost him before he reaches the comparative sanctuary of the
town proper. To each he suggests work at the lumberyard or station,
but his tone is no longer so cordial as when he began his journey.
In fact, it has soured into a brusque and impatient tone after so many
identical request.

Wholly unsatisfied with his instructions on how to put themselves to
work, they instead demand ephemeral but immediate remedies to their
squalid condition. In return for his increasingly gruff directions to the
lumberyard, they begin to assault the young man with rocks and branches,
leaving him with not only shattered spectacles, but welts and bruises
as well. His shillings and bread are gone, as his good will.

Later that day in the high street pub next to the apothecary shop which
he owns and manages, the young man nurses his unhappiness with a pint
of the local brew and recounts his matinal tribulations to his mates,
who appear perplexed by their friend's naïveté. "You actually went down
to the beach?" they inquire incredulously. "How could you not know that
it's been overrun by dozens of worthless gypsies? The beach is a total
wreck now. Might as well condemn her, burn out the shrubbery, and put
up a wire fence. Maybe even get some hounds to guard it."

This seems like a harsh response to the young man, but no one provides an
alternative. He explains his ignorance, "I've been sequestered away in
my shop, developing new unctions and philtres these past winter months.
I had no idea that our quaint hamlet had been invaded by such vagabonds!
But why must we burn down or fence off the beach, just on their account?
After all, "help wanted" signs are posted everywhere, with complete
information about building and manning the new coach station. Why can't
they just come into town, get a proper job, and toil for their bread
as the rest of us do? Why must we keep providing them facile handouts
forever?"

Overhearing these remarks, the vicar sets down his own pint and shakes his
head sadly as he tries to explain the gypsies' behaviour. "Although the
Travelling People may well speak English, they are not from our culture.
If you folk continue to judge them by your own standards, they will always
come up lacking. That's not their fault; it's yours. Don't you realise
that most can't even read these placards you're talking about? Even
if they could, it wouldn't help. In their culture, you never sign up for
long-term jobs. They don't hold still long enough to actually learn a
trade or profession. They'd rather be tinkerers, and move on, letting
the next troop come in to replace them. We can't change their natures."

"But we don't have to let them ruin our beach, do we, Vicar?" retorts
the barman. "No," says the cleric, "we don't. But if that means driving
them out, all you do is anger them and force them on to the next town
down the coast, and this time, with chips on their shoulders."

The young man is disturbed now, perhaps even depressed. It's beginning
to sound as though no tenable solution exists to these otiose beggars
taking over his idyllic beach of so many golden childhood memories
with his friends. Its current denizens can't read, they won't work,
and driving them out might be a solution that's worse than the problem.
The vicar helped see the situation without cultural bias, but not to
see feasible solution.

The chemist, dour now from the exchange, finishes his pint and goes back
to mixing his arcane powders and potions, hoping that they at least might
someday help the sick and the needy. Perhaps he won't return to the beach
after all. When a simple morning stroll becomes so arduous an event as
he has recently experienced, it really doesn't seem worth the trouble.


--
Tom Christiansen tch...@perl.com

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy
is about telescopes." --E.W. Dijkstra

Andy Lester

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Tom Christiansen (tch...@mox.perl.com) wrote:
: Once upon a time, a sharp young man opens the window from his cottage and

: contemplates a morning stroll. The day is clear and crisp, and the sea
...
: someday help the sick and the needy. Perhaps he won't return to the beach

: after all. When a simple morning stroll becomes so arduous an event as
: he has recently experienced, it really doesn't seem worth the trouble.

You forgot the part where the young man mocks the vagabonds for having
different clothes than he. "And while you're getting a job, get yourself
some new trousers. Those aren't trousers," he mocks, "they might as well
be a burlap sack with leg holes." You left out the part where the others
on the beach scratch their heads wondering how such berating is likely to
encourage anyone to get a job.

xoxo,
Andy


--
--
Andy Lester: <an...@petdance.com> http://tezcat.com/~andy/
Chicago Shows List: <sh...@ChicagoMusic.com> http://ChicagoMusic.com/


Al Thomas

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to Tom Christiansen

Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
...

> after all. When a simple morning stroll becomes so arduous an event as
> he has recently experienced, it really doesn't seem worth the trouble.
>
> --
> Tom Christiansen tch...@perl.com
>
> "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy
> is about telescopes." --E.W. Dijkstra

Well said.

Moises G. Solis

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Your art is moving. It's like a song.

http://www.godsdailyword.com/DisplaySelect.stm?89

By the way, when I went to the lumberyard, they said I was too old, didn't
have experience using sockets with Java, and didn't have blinders on to focus
my direction.

So, if you have half a loaf, I will share it with my family as we read your
book.

Moises.


Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98
to

A fine fantasy story, but as an allegory for life in this group it
misses the mark a little. Either the mirror is tarnished or not in the
FAQ. I'm sorry, Tom, but if you want to wallow in maudlin self-pity, I'll
help you get over it.

In article <6bvgf3$rfp$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,


Tom Christiansen <tch...@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>Once upon a time, a sharp young man opens the window from his cottage and
>contemplates a morning stroll. The day is clear and crisp, and the sea
>air comes wafting up to town, inviting dalliance instead of work. So he
>chooses a route that will take him down to the beach. It's been some time
>since he's visited the beach, but as a child, he and his friends used to
>cavort amongst waves and sand every day, delighting in the sea spume.
>He wonders whether his boyhood friends still frequent their old haunt.
>
>As he takes the path down to the water, he comes across a gypsy woman in
>dirty but colorful rags, accompanied by her similarly attired children.

Fine so far, but now we must insert:

"Instead of simply ignoring the woman and her children because he does not
wish to spend time with them, he decides to stop and talk to them."

>Crying out in plaintive supplication, she beseeches, "Young sir, I have
>no job from which I might garner wages to feed my two hungry children.
>You who are so fortunate and fine, can you not find it in your heart
>to spare some of what you so obviously have in abundance to help us
>who have nothing? It will mean so little to you, but so much to us.
>Surely you can do something."
>
>Touched by her plight, the man astounds the desperate woman by doling
>out a few shillings. She thanks him profusely, nearly tearfully, and
>she gives him a tiny, hand-crafted toy to eventually pass on to his
>own children. He continues on his way, happy to have brought the woman
>tears of relief and joy.

If you think any of your flames brought tears of joy to the eyes of
those you flamed, you need more than a new mirror.

"The Young Man has grown tired of filthy beggars dirtying his beach,
and he grabs the gypsy woman by the shoulders and shakes her. 'Your
clothes are filthy and your children are noisy. You should dress like
me and your children should act like me. And I already wrote a book
with my answer to your plea for help.'"

>After no more than a score of yards further down the path, the young
>man is stopped by a barefoot boy, who makes a request similar to the

"After no more than a score of yards further down the path, the young

man decides not to ignore a barefoot boy sitting by the path. He stops
and allows the boy to speak to him."

>one just heard. However, as he has no more shillings to spare, nor
>even pennies, the man breaks in two the loaf of bread he was carrying for
>his own repast, and he gives the bright-eyed youngster fully half of
>what he has. The boy's eyes widen in surprise, and with a brief thank
>you and good day, the lad scampers off to gnaw upon the crust.

Oops.

"The Young Man grasps the barefoot boy by the collar and shakes him.
'Your toenails need clipping, and your clothes are dirty. And if you
want to know if I will give you money, read the book I already wrote.'
The boy shakes his head in amazement at the display."

I could go on, but why? You won't see yourself in what I wrote because
you are too certain that you are helping people by insulting their
newsreaders. You are too sure that Usenet is a zero sum game. Every
"donation" you made in your fable left you poorer. In reality,
answering someone's question in this newsgroup does not mean you no
longer have that knowledge. But most of all, in every case you used in
your fable, you had the option to simply ignore the beggar without any
repercussions at all.


Graham Barr

unread,
Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98
to

Mark Kramer wrote:
<ungrateful gibberish deleted>

It is posts like these that are likely to alienate the people on
this list who soul purpose for being here is to help. Sure
we might get a little short with people at times but believe
me this newsgroup would be almost useless if all these
"good samaritans" left to help others who appreciated their
input.

--
Originality is the ability to conceal your source.

Nem W Schlecht

unread,
Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98
to

In comp.lang.perl.misc, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
><ungrateful gibberish deleted>
>
>It is posts like these that are likely to alienate the people on
>this list who soul purpose for being here is to help. Sure
>we might get a little short with people at times but believe
>me this newsgroup would be almost useless if all these
>"good samaritans" left to help others who appreciated their
>input.

Unfortunately, many of us have left.

I now only read the articles that my killfile selects as somewhat valid.
Actually, I don't even really do that. I'll sometimes glance at some of
the articles.

Keep up the good work, Tom. You know you still have a lot of grateful
people behind you.

--
Nem W Schlecht n...@plains.nodak.edu
NDUS UNIX SysAdmin http://www.nodak.edu/~nem/
"Perl did the magic. I just waved the wand."

Rosemary I H Powell

unread,
Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98
to

In article <6bvgf3$rfp$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, Tom Christiansen
<tch...@mox.perl.com> writes

>Once upon a time, a sharp young man opens the window from his cottage and
>contemplates a morning stroll. The day is clear and crisp, and the sea
>air comes wafting up to town
...

>The young man is disturbed now, perhaps even depressed. It's beginning
>to sound as though no tenable solution exists to these otiose beggars
>taking over his idyllic beach

One way to solve it:


In the beginning was the system, and the system's name was called UNIX,
and Gurus saw the system and knew that it was good. And so new systems
were created, each in their own image and in their own language. But the
King of all systems was UNIX and in its Crown they placed a Great PERL.

And it came to pass that the Gurus came together to meet at a great
Tower, and the name of the Tower was Babel. And each spoke in his own
language and in his own tongue. And then they saw that each could speak
only unto himself and no other, and they rent their clothes and cried
out in their confusion, and there was ignorance in the land.

Now there arose a New Prophet in the mountains and his name was called
Tim Berners-Lee. And he came to the Tower whose name was Babel, bearing
a great gift. And the name of this gift was Hypertext. And as he offered
this gift up at the Tower whose name was Babel, he called forth "Guru
shall speak unto Guru and computer shall speak to computer throughout
the earth", and as he spoke there descended upon the earth a Great
Shining Web. And at this time the Gurus each spoke in their own language
and their own tongue, and cried out "Hallelujah, we speak each in our
own language and in our own tongue, and we speak each to ourselves AND
unto all others!" And the name of Berners_Lee was blessed in the land.

And it came to pass that there arose a False Profit in the west, and he
saw that the Web was money; and he opened up the PERLy Gates, saying "I
shall sell PCs by the million and bring their benfits to every Newbie in
the land, and the profits therefrom into mine own purse." And thus it
was that the greatness of the Web was known throughout the land of the
Newbies.

And in the course of time the name of PERL was known also unto them all
around the earth, and it was told to them that it was easier for a Camel
to pass through the Common Gateway Interface than it was for him to pass
through the eye of a needle. And so it was that the Newbies came to the
wise Oracle CLPM to learn of the great PERL of UNIX. But they
understood not how to consult the Oracle and cried out in their
ignorance: "HELP HELP I'M A NEWBIE - I WANT A KEWL CGI SCRIPT!" And the
Oracle answered them not. And the Gurus sitting at the feet of the
Oracle CLPM beat their breasts and said each to another: "Things are
looking Black, we have no Wall to keep these Newbies out." And in their
fear and ignorance the Newbies cast stones and shouted out insults.

But in the fullness of time the Oracle blew forth flames and brimstone
and called out in a Great Voice: "FAQ...POD...MAN PAGES...CGI != Perl"
And the Newbies heard and were confused, calling out each in his own
ignorance: "HELP HELP I'M A NEWBIE - WINDOWS...MICRO$OFT...DOS !"
And again came forth flames and a Great Voice crying out: "FAQ... MAN
PAGES...POD...blue Camel...flock...cron...chmod...Perl != CGI..."
And the Newbies were sore afraid and again cried out in their ignorance:
"HELP HELP I'M JUST A NEWBIE...WIN95...NT... MICRO$OFT...BILL GATES"
And for the third time, belching forth fire and flames, a Great Voice
called unto them: "FAQ...POD...MAN PAGES...chmod...cron...blue Camel
...flock...Perl != CGI...; rm *;"

And so it came to pass that with this last utterence, the Web was
removed from the face of the earth and with it all the Newbies, and
peace reigned once more in CLPM...


Rosemary
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rosemary I.H.Powell EMail: Home: ro...@dozyrosy.demon.co.uk |
| Work: r.i.h....@rl.ac.uk |
| http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/dozyrosy/ |
| http://www.dozyrosy.demon.co.uk/ |
| http://www.CavalierKingCharles.com/ |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

In article <34E45CDC...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
><ungrateful gibberish deleted>

Ok, Mr. Barr. You tell me, exactly, what I was supposed to be grateful
for in the fable Tom posted. Was I supposed to be grateful that he
compared all of us to dirty beggars and shoeless children? Was I
supposed to be grateful for his reference to all the human debris on
"his beach"? No, you don't get to exclude yourself from his fable,
since he did not find any of his old friends on the beach, just the
rabble.

Or maybe what I was supposed to be grateful for was the way he was
jumping down people's throats for picking the wrong newsreader to post
to his group?

You tell me, Mr. Barr. Which is it?

>It is posts like these that are likely to alienate the people on
>this list who soul purpose for being here is to help.

Telling people that they are scum who are using scurilous software
isn't going to help them. It will alienate them. And posts like this
"Young Man on the Beach" will alienate everyone else. I found it
offensive to be lumped with the detritus that beg for scraps when I
have not once begged Mr. Christiansen for anything, and when Mr.
Christiansen is creating a good deal of the noise about which he
complains, and when he seems unable to simply walk past the beggars as
I have been doing for years.

How dare I infest his beach? How dare I indeed.

As for his "soul" purpose being to "help", well, I can state without
hesitation that his vendettas helped nobody. It increased the noise
and drew attention to himself, that's all.

>Sure
>we might get a little short with people at times but believe
>me this newsgroup would be almost useless if all these
>"good samaritans" left to help others who appreciated their
>input.

Please explain to me how one cannot appreciate VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
to a group while opposing flames. You can't explain it, because you can
appreciate contributions while pointing out flames.

Nobody is talking about the contributions that Tom makes, except those
who think it excuses his OS flaming. There are some of us here who
think his vendetta against properly formatted articles from certain
newsreaders does nothing but hurt his reputation and make him look
petty and vain. If he doesn't care, then that's fine, but he ought to
know.


Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

In article <6c2hdq$3...@abattoir.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu>,

Nem W Schlecht <n...@abattoir.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>Unfortunately, many of us have left.

And many of us haven't.

>Keep up the good work, Tom. You know you still have a lot of grateful
>people behind you.

Yes, by all means, keep up the good work. Nobody has said he should
stop that. Just drop the OS flaming and fables.


Larry D'Anna

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

Windows, Netscape, AOL, and the like deserve to be flamed. Once upon
a time the rules netiquette were presented _very_ clearly to newbies
before they posted anything. I don't see M$, Netscape, AOL, or
any of the ISPs doing this. They have done a lot of damage to usenet.
This should be made clear to their customers.

---------------------------------------------------
|Democracy is the worst system of government. --
|Except for all the others
| -Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------
Larry D'Anna "eschew obfuscation"

Larry D'Anna

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

Mark Kramer wrote:
>
> In article <34E45CDC...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
> >Mark Kramer wrote:
> ><ungrateful gibberish deleted>
>
> Ok, Mr. Barr. You tell me, exactly, what I was supposed to be grateful
> for in the fable Tom posted. Was I supposed to be grateful that he
> compared all of us to dirty beggars and shoeless children? Was I
> supposed to be grateful for his reference to all the human debris on
> "his beach"? No, you don't get to exclude yourself from his fable,
> since he did not find any of his old friends on the beach, just the
> rabble.

It is because of him and those like him that you have perl to talk
about anyway. Those people _created_ this beach, if you want
to be here you should play by their rules.


> Or maybe what I was supposed to be grateful for was the way he was

> jumping down people's throats for picking the wrong newsreader to post
> to his group?
>

He doesn't jump down peoples throats for using crappy news readers. He
informs people that their posts are ugly and need to be formatted correctly.
He also makes several humorous and accurate comments about crappy news readers.
Maybe you should thank him for making you aware that better software than
what you are currently using is available for free.

[ sniped more stupid ramblings ]

> As for his "soul" purpose being to "help", well, I can state without
> hesitation that his vendettas helped nobody. It increased the noise
> and drew attention to himself, that's all.

I have found his posts to be tremendously helpful, you would too if you
weren't so busy being defensive.

[ snip ]

I R A Aggie

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

In article <EoCIJ...@world.std.com>, c28...@world.std.com (Mark Kramer) wrote:

+ In article <34E45CDC...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
+ >Mark Kramer wrote:
+ ><ungrateful gibberish deleted>
+
+ Ok, Mr. Barr. You tell me, exactly, what I was supposed to be grateful
+ for in the fable Tom posted. Was I supposed to be grateful that he
+ compared all of us to dirty beggars and shoeless children?

Is there anything wrong with being a "dirty beggar" or a shoeless child?
Don't think so. On the other hand, if they are unwilling to help themselves,
why should I be bothered to help them?

The same is true of the FAQers, who want a quick answer to their problem
du jour. "Gimme Gimme Gimme". They have access to the same materials as
I do, both the distributed documentation and the printed documents one
may purchase in the Real World. I took the time to become familiar with
those documents, and I purchased several books.

Amazingly, those books contain something called an "index". It is a
listing of words/concepts, and the pages they appear upon. Searching
for such things in electronic documents is far simpler, and faster.
Even a WWW search will return more and better information _faster_
than a post to Usenet.

And yet, there are those who's first thought is to ask on Usenet. Why?
when they have other, better, sources of information?

+ Was I
+ supposed to be grateful for his reference to all the human debris on
+ "his beach"? No, you don't get to exclude yourself from his fable,
+ since he did not find any of his old friends on the beach, just the
+ rabble.

Graham Barr isn't "just the rabble". If you knew anything about netlib,
you'd know that. The "rabble" in this case is the "gimme gimme gimme"
crowd, which, for some reason, you seem to be one of their Champions.
I'm _sure_ they'll thank you. Eventually. Maybe.

+ Or maybe what I was supposed to be grateful for was the way he was
+ jumping down people's throats for picking the wrong newsreader to post
+ to his group?

Which just happen to have a strong correlation with malformed, not easy to
read posts. If a post is not easy to read, I'm much less likely to read
it, and much less likely to provide any answers to any questions, no matter
how well crafted the question is.

I myself post from one of those "wrong newsreaders". I am also very
concious of my formatting...

+ You tell me, Mr. Barr. Which is it?

I suspect that your pride has been hurt.

+ complains, and when he seems unable to simply walk past the beggars as
+ I have been doing for years.

I see. You aren't really the champion of the gimme crowd. But apparently
you have no compassion, either, to help those in need.

+ How dare I infest his beach? How dare I indeed.

I believe you know where the door is? I'll be _quite_ happy to help
you out, since you seem to be so unhappy here.

+ As for his "soul" purpose being to "help", well, I can state without
+ hesitation that his vendettas helped nobody. It increased the noise
+ and drew attention to himself, that's all.

And your motivations are?

+ who think it excuses his OS flaming. There are some of us here who
+ think his vendetta against properly formatted articles from certain
+ newsreaders does nothing but hurt his reputation and make him look
+ petty and vain. If he doesn't care, then that's fine, but he ought to
+ know.

Then he knows, doesn't he? Ought of curiousity, why do you care about
Tom's reputation??

James

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN-local/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>

Bart Lateur

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

How dare I. I can see Mark Kramer's point.

fl_a...@thepentagon.com (I R A Aggie) wrote:

>Graham Barr isn't "just the rabble". If you knew anything about netlib,
>you'd know that.

Which gives?

>+ How dare I infest his beach? How dare I indeed.
>
>I believe you know where the door is? I'll be _quite_ happy to help
>you out, since you seem to be so unhappy here.

One of the problems of this newgroup is that a small number of people
expect everybody to fall on their knees in appraisal. "Thank you, Perl
gods, thank you for your gift. Thank you for punishing me into
correcting my malformatted posts".

You just sound like the Inquisition.

YOU may think you deserve it. Many people (outside the small incrowd)
will think you're just an arrogant SOB.

Bart.

Tom Christiansen

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

In comp.lang.perl.misc, bart.me...@tornado.be (Bart Lateur) writes:
:One of the problems of this newgroup is that a small number of people

:expect everybody to fall on their knees in appraisal.
^^^^^^^^^
"I do not think that that word means what you think it means."
--the Princess Bride

All problems pale before one solitary hurdle: the demographic shift
on the Net from a majority of competant programmers, researchers, and
self-starters engaged in a a gift-culture of mutual benefit to a totally
different one. I will let one contributor to my +inbox reference the
other group.

I totally agree. I long for those days when Usenet meant mainly UUCP
and friends, not because I'm some sort of neo-Luddite, but because
using Usenet meant that you'd [generic you] already achieved *some*
level of technical competence which made your postings mostly worth
reading. Now that the demographics of the net consists mainly of
mentally lazy jerkoffs who think that the world owes them something
for nothing, I suppose that it is the end of Usenet as we knew it. It
is a culture which while perhaps not a consequence, is certainly
consonant with the Microsloth world-view and dominance.

The point of this missive is to simply add my voice in support to
your views on both lazy solve-my-problem-for-me wankers and the
world-according-to-Bill.

:YOU may think you deserve it. Many people (outside the small incrowd)


:will think you're just an arrogant SOB.

Recall that your "small incrowd" of 20-100 developers are the ones
who actually do virtually all the work. This counts for a great deal:
remember that the Net is a meritocracy, not a gimmeacracy. For each
of us, there is perhaps a kiloPoB, even a myriaPoB, of others. This is
the very crux of the problem.

Contrary to the parvenus' perspective on the matter, Usenet is not
some cyberwelfare system awarding infinite free consulting handouts
to those who either can not or else will not work. The best it's ever
going to be is a way for folks to get pointers on how to do that work
*for themselves*. Eventually, they must learn to do their own work,
hire someone who can, or consider waiting tables.

If that's an offputting attitude, so be it. It happens to be reality,
and you if you don't care for reality, go change the world to make it
a better place for everyone.

Good luck,

--tom
--
Tom Christiansen tch...@jhereg.perl.com

Some are born to perl, some achieve perl, and some have perl
thrust upon them.

I R A Aggie

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

In article <34f5087b...@news.tornado.be>, bart.me...@tornado.be
(Bart Lateur) wrote:

+ How dare I. I can see Mark Kramer's point.

Please share. All I see is Kramer's Whine.

+ fl_a...@thepentagon.com (I R A Aggie) wrote:

+ >Graham Barr isn't "just the rabble". If you knew anything about netlib,
+ >you'd know that.
+
+ Which gives?

FTP services, among other networking services...

+ >+ How dare I infest his beach? How dare I indeed.

+ >I believe you know where the door is? I'll be _quite_ happy to help
+ >you out, since you seem to be so unhappy here.

+ One of the problems of this newgroup is that a small number of people
+ expect everybody to fall on their knees in appraisal.

I don't expect that, not at all. Courtesy and consideration, which seems
to be the point -- tho I'm not sure -- IS A TWO WAY STREET. You want me
to be considerate and courteous? sure, no problem. And the next time I
suggest that someone read the FAQ, or the documents, or execute a 'perldoc'
command, you will ensure that the person receiving that comment will be
courteous in return, and not whine about how mean I am for making them
do their own work, even if they wished for someone to do their work
for them?

+ "Thank you, Perl
+ gods, thank you for your gift. Thank you for punishing me into
+ correcting my malformatted posts".

Well, let's see...you could take a bit extra effort and time and format
your posts and make it _easier_ for me read, consider, and respond, or
you can leave 'em as-is, and make it so much easier for me to ignore 'em.

Again, courtesy is a two way street. But the victims of the malformed
posts are the _senders_. Their questions are much less likely to be
responded to. It is in their OWN INTEREST to format their posts better.

+ You just sound like the Inquisition.

Flattery will get you no where...

+ YOU may think you deserve it. Many people (outside the small incrowd)
+ will think you're just an arrogant SOB.

And they're entitled to their opinions. But that doesn't change the fact
that:

1. many answers they seek are on their own systems. they merely have to
learn that its there, and how to find them.

2. many answers are available via the WWW: thru the various search engines,
Dejanews, www.perl.com and CPAN.

3. questions posted to Usenet may or may not get answered, and the poster
of question may or may not ever see any answers. Tis the nature of the
beast.

4. and if they get answers, will they be _correct_ answers? an answer out
of the FAQ is probably correct.

5. questions to Usenet is the slowest method of getting a satisfactory
answer.

John Bollenbacher

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

I think that long-time participants in internet and computing in general
forget
how daunting it can all be to the neophyte. Try to cast your mind back
to
your first exposure to this all. Try imagining yourself as a university
(or
high school?) freshman who has just heard of the incredible information
to be
found in newsgroups. Without any other assistance, you discovered how
to get
your browser to show you the contents of comp.lang.perl.misc and you
have never
seen the letters FAQ before.

Being inquisitive and a self-starter you post a question not even
knowing
where your questions will go or if anyone will actually see them.

Now return your thoughts to the present. Doesn't it seem like having a
canned
reply that explains some of the basics of the net to send to this soul
would
go some distance to furthering that person's education while minimizing
the
net bandwidth dedicated to discussing topics like this?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Bollenbacher
328 12'th St.
Del Mar, CA 92014
619.350.1122
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Berry

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

John Bollenbacher (j...@cts.com) wrote:
: I think that long-time participants in internet and computing in general

: forget
: how daunting it can all be to the neophyte. Try to cast your mind back
: to
[snip]

Might I please nominate this post for a 1998 Unintentional Irony Award?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cbe...@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."

sha...@netusa1.net

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

In article <6bvgf3$rfp$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,

tch...@mox.perl.com (Tom Christiansen) wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, a sharp young man opens the window from his cottage

< snip >

1. For the past two hous or so, I have been wondering whether to respond to
this posting or not. (For the past two weeks or so, I have been wondering
whether to write on this general topic or not.] Obviously, I have decided to
respond. I probably will get some flames. Obviously, I decided to risk it. I
love Perl as a language. However, I love my freedom to speak out on issues
however unpopular (guaranteed by this wonderful country, the U.S and made
possible by the wonderful invention net and capitalism) even more. [One of
the things that made me make this decision was this: my fourth grader son -
born and raised in the U.S.- does not like the food in his school cafeteria.
He is organizing his friends to submit a petition to the school authorities
to improve the school food. I shouldn't hesitate to speak for the things I
believe in.]

2. I am writing this through DejaNews. My Internet Explorer newsreader
DOES mess up lines. I do not know how to fix it. I do know that if I
search DejaNews/ post in appropriate groups, I will be able to solve this.
I do plan to do this sometime. However, I do not have time and energy
for this, at the moment. I sincerely hope that the lines of this response
do not get messed up. If it does and it bothers you, please stop reading
this. If I waited to make this response until I fixed the newsreader problem,
I may decide not to respond; in any case, I don't have the patience to
wait now.

3. I have been programming for over twenty years. [I once wrote a book
proposal to Addison-Wesley for a beginner's book on Smalltalk, around
1988 or so. The series editor for the Smalltalk blue book - a professor
at Cal, Berkeley - liked it. The acquisitions editor did not like it. That was
the end of it.]

4. I am writing this rather quickly - at home, on my IBM PC. I am sure that
there will be some spelling and other errors, some people will misunder-
stand some of what I say. However, I do not have the time and energy
to give it the attention a professional paper deserves. [I am taking time out
of a paper I am writing, to make this response. Obviously, what I am
saying here is important to me. Maybe, just maybe, something positive will
come out of this.]

5. I have been taking part - reading and posting - in this newsgroup for
about one month now. I have access to DejaNews at home but not at work (where
I do not have access past the firewall; technical newsgroups are available to
us inside the firewall.) In this period, I have bought the new Camel and just
ordered 'Mastering Regular Expressions'. I am planning on buying 'Effective
Perl Programming' and possibly 'Advanced Perl Programming'. I looked at the
Sams Publishing book ('Learn Perl in 21 days' or something like that), in a
bookstore yesterday. This is the first time I have seen this book - of
course, I have read about this book in this newsgroup. I almost bought this
book. From the ten minutes I spent looking at the book, I think that it
provides a useful service. I am great fan of the dummies types of books. When
hundreds of things clamor for our time and attention, these type of books
make learning easier. People have written about errors in the book.
Obviously, they take away from the value of the book. However, they do not
destroy the value of this type of book. I have also been speaking up Perl to
several of my colleagues who program in 'c' and 'c++'.

6. On to the main topic, after all these introductory remarks.

7. This beach has been set aside for discussing Perl. The sharp young man has
made a tremendous amount of contributions to Perl which is available for
free. Does these mean that he 'owns' this beach, that he gets to set the
rules in this beach, that it is his way or highway, that even though this and
similar beaches are on the surface completely and totally open to anybody who
can swing $8 a month in ISP charges and have a PC, the sharp young man is
more equal than others ? What side you take in this debate may depend on your
answer to the above question. This situation is not unique to this newsgroup.
In several technical newsgroups, a few make unusually large contributions
even for the upkeep of the newsgroup (such as providing space for archives).
Do they get to control the newsgroup, especially if it is unmoderated ?
Questions regarding etiquette needs to answer this question. The only book I
have seen that talks about the beach in its subject area is the blue Camel
book. It certainly gives the impression that the beach is a friendly place
and that all newcomers would be welcome to ask even silly questions. (It DOES
say that some questions are too silly to answer. However, it DOES NOT say
that you will be called an urchin, a gypsy, a barefoot beggar, a known lazy
bastard, a Bill toady, etc., if you ask a question already in the FAQ, if you
asked a question not strictly related to Perl but that arose when using Perl
in a CGI application, or under a certain operating system, or if you subject
line is not descriptive enough or if you don't know how to prevent your
linewraps messing up or if you use the wrong newsreader. I don't believe that
Tim O'Reily will agree to this; but if the sharp young man sincerely believes
that he is being wronged, that the beach is being overrun by people 'not like
him', he should make this sentiment very clearly known in the section of the
book that talks about the beach. He cannot have it both ways.

8. I have made my main point. There is no need to go on. I do want to
address just one other point though. Nobody is putting a gun to the sharp
young man's head to answer a particular post. If he does not like it - for
whatever reason - he can just ignore it. There is no urchin physically
accosting him; there is no gypsy woman grabbing his hand and begging
him. In fact, some of the people asking the questions may not even be
aware of his existence. The questions are not addressed to him.

9. I want to close with mentioning something B.F. Skinner's daughter Julie
Skinner Vargas wrote about once in The Behavior Analyst. It seems that
Skinner would get letters from the public asking questions like 'You are my
favorite scientist, can you tell me why ?'. Skinner would respond to them
patiently, pointing to his books in the library, week after week. If you are
in the public eye, you have to deal with some of these; of course, you could
totally ignore these requests.

Regards.

Venkataraman ("Shaker") Chandrasekhar
A slightly older but definitely better looking man :) :)


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

dan...@negia.net

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

In article <6c75m8$p73$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,

tch...@mox.perl.com (Tom Christiansen) wrote:
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, bart.me...@tornado.be (Bart Lateur) writes:
> :One of the problems of this newgroup is that a small number of people
> :expect everybody to fall on their knees in appraisal.

> ^^^^^^^^^
> "I do not think that that word means what you think it means."
> --the Princess Bride
>
> All problems pale before one solitary hurdle: the demographic shift
> on the Net from a majority of competant programmers, researchers, and
^^^^^^^^^

see quote above. at first i thought it was a typo, but that is now
the second time i have seen you use that word. perhaps it is just
an alternate spelling, of which i am not aware.

cheerio,

--
danboo rstein

Chip Salzenberg

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

According to sha...@netusa1.net:

>2. I am writing this through DejaNews. My Internet Explorer newsreader
>DOES mess up lines. I do not know how to fix it. I do know that if I
>search DejaNews/ post in appropriate groups, I will be able to solve this.
>I do plan to do this sometime. However, I do not have time and energy
>for this, at the moment.

Well, that's fairly inconsiderate. Consider all the collective hours
that your readers will spend reading your articles. Your moments of
research are too valuable to spend saving the rest of the world hours
of discomfort caused by your own writings?
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <ch...@pobox.com>
"Hoist the failure sails, men! We're goin' home!" // MST3K
-> Ask me about Perl training and consulting <-
Like Perl? Want to help out? The Perl Institute: www.perl.org

Russ Allbery

unread,
Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98
to

John Bollenbacher <j...@cts.com> writes:

> I think that long-time participants in internet and computing in general
> forget how daunting it can all be to the neophyte. Try to cast your

> mind back to your first exposure to this all. Try imagining yourself as


> a university (or high school?) freshman who has just heard of the
> incredible information to be found in newsgroups. Without any other
> assistance, you discovered how to get your browser to show you the
> contents of comp.lang.perl.misc and you have never seen the letters FAQ
> before.

I posted a horribly miswrapped message the first time I posted, three days
after I started posting. I immediately realized my mistake, lurked a
while longer, and started posting comments about things I thought I knew a
little bit about. I listened to other people. I tried not to make the
same mistake twice. When I saw my first FAQ, I read the entire thing all
the way through, and then I knew what the letters stood for.

A month later, I was astonished to find people complimeneting me on how
fast I learned. I didn't, and still don't, think that I learned
particularly fast. I just demonstrated some basic respect of other
people's places, listened to people who knew more than I do, and tried to
act in a manner that made other people want to listen to what I said.

Basic politeness is not difficult. It simply requires desire and some
time invested into learning the community.

Of course, Usenet wasn't nearly as widespread when I started, and I didn't
post until I was a junior in college. Perhaps that made a difference.
But it doesn't have to. There are several posters to a newsgroup I
moderate who are 14-16 years old, and while they make some dumb mistakes
from time to time, they've proven more than capable of handling the
responsibility of posting to a world-wide network.

--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print

Graham Barr

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

Mark Kramer wrote:
>
> In article <34E45CDC...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
> >Mark Kramer wrote:
> ><ungrateful gibberish deleted>
>
> Ok, Mr. Barr.

Whenever someone calls me "Mr Barr" I always think I have pissed
them off in some way.

> You tell me, exactly, what I was supposed to be grateful

> for in the fable Tom posted. Was I supposed to be grateful that he

> compared all of us to dirty beggars and shoeless children?

Tom did not compare you, or anyone else, to dirty beggars. He simply
posted a fable which had some resemblance to what is happening on
this group. It was you who compared yourself to a dirty beggar,
so if you do not like it I suggest you do something about it.

> Was I


> supposed to be grateful for his reference to all the human debris on

> "his beach"? No, you don't get to exclude yourself from his fable,

> since he did not find any of his old friends on the beach, just the

> rabble.

No I do not exclude myself, but then I did not take it personally
either.

>
> Or maybe what I was supposed to be grateful for was the way he was

> jumping down people's throats for picking the wrong newsreader to post

> to his group?


>
> You tell me, Mr. Barr. Which is it?

oo, you seem so wound up, belive me it is not worth it, just calm down

> As for his "soul" purpose being to "help", well, I can state without

> hesitation that his vendettas helped nobody. It increased the noise

> and drew attention to himself, that's all.

I can assure you that there are *very* few people in this group
who would agree that Tom's purpose of reading this group is for
anything other than to help.

Richard Bellavance

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <m3g1lkk...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,

Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>Of course, Usenet wasn't nearly as widespread when I started, and I didn't
>post until I was a junior in college. Perhaps that made a difference.
>But it doesn't have to. There are several posters to a newsgroup I
>moderate who are 14-16 years old, and while they make some dumb mistakes
>from time to time, they've proven more than capable of handling the
>responsibility of posting to a world-wide network.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here, here ! If only more people could think of posting to Usenet as not
just a right (which it is), but also as an act that carries responsabilities
and that can affect your reputation (which it is very much also). How do you
make people understand that ?

Richard, afraid the answer is "you can't"...
--
Richard Bellavance -- cha...@cam.org -- http://www.cam.org/~charlot/
"All along this path I tread / My heart betrays my weary head
With nothing but my love to save / From the cradle to the grave"
(Eric Clapton, "From the cradle")

Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <fl_aggie-140...@aggie.coaps.fsu.edu>,

I R A Aggie <fl_a...@thepentagon.com> wrote:
>Is there anything wrong with being a "dirty beggar" or a shoeless child?
>Don't think so.

Then you don't agree with the fable? Tom msde it pretty clear that
these were the "bad guys".

>On the other hand, if they are unwilling to help themselves,
>why should I be bothered to help them?

And if they are willing to help themselves?

>Graham Barr isn't "just the rabble". If you knew anything about netlib,

>you'd know that.

I guess you didn't read the fable you are so busy defending, or maybe
you didn't understand the allegory. The beach is this newsgroup. When
the "Young Man" visited the beach, he didn't find anything BUT rabble.
Graham is here. You figure the rest of it out.

>The "rabble" in this case is the "gimme gimme gimme"
>crowd, which, for some reason, you seem to be one of their Champions.

When I stand up for those who don't say Gimme, when they are lumped
into "the rabble", I am somehow championing the gimme people. What
would cause a presumably intelligent person to come to that
conclusion?

>I'm _sure_ they'll thank you. Eventually. Maybe.

Well, I would have thought that those who got lumped int the class of
"rabble" who weren't would say "thank you", but I guess you won't. Did
I forget to mention, YOU were on the beach the day the Young Man saw
all the rabble.

>Which just happen to have a strong correlation with malformed, not easy to
>read posts.

Except he was jumping down the throats of people who were posting
properly formatted articles. Did you miss that? Must be.

>I myself post from one of those "wrong newsreaders". I am also very
>concious of my formatting...

Good for you. I bet you would be unhappy if you got flamed for using
shitty software and being clueless because you did.

>+ You tell me, Mr. Barr. Which is it?
>
>I suspect that your pride has been hurt.

That is usually the result of being insulted without cause.

>+ complains, and when he seems unable to simply walk past the beggars as
>+ I have been doing for years.
>
>I see. You aren't really the champion of the gimme crowd.

Duh.

>But apparently
>you have no compassion, either, to help those in need.

I don't call flaming people for using the software they are using "help",
when that software is not relevant to the problem.

>+ How dare I infest his beach? How dare I indeed.
>

>I believe you know where the door is? I'll be _quite_ happy to help

>you out, since you seem to be so unhappy here.

Agree with you or leave. I see. There was a time on Usenet when people
could have differences of opinion without ths sort of ultimatum.

>Then he knows, doesn't he? Ought of curiousity, why do you care about

I just said he ought to know what he is doing to himself. If he doesn't
care, why do you?


Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <6c73b4$d...@fridge.shore.net>,
Nathan V. Patwardhan <n...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>*sigh* It's a shame that people don't follow netiquette anymore.

One of those bits of netiquette hapens to involve OS flaming.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <fl_aggie-150...@aggie.coaps.fsu.edu>,

I R A Aggie <fl_a...@thepentagon.com> wrote:
>In article <34f5087b...@news.tornado.be>, bart.me...@tornado.be
>(Bart Lateur) wrote:
>
>+ How dare I. I can see Mark Kramer's point.
>
>Please share. All I see is Kramer's Whine.

Perhaps because you didn't read Tom's comments?

>I don't expect that, not at all. Courtesy and consideration, which seems
>to be the point -- tho I'm not sure -- IS A TWO WAY STREET. You want me

Nothing I wrote said anything about what I want YOU to do. Not one
word. I pointed out that flaming people for which newsreader they used
was not helping, and then when the grandly eloquent fable was posted,
pointed out that it insulted a lot of people who didn't deserve it.

When you stoop to the level of OS flaming for the sake of OS flaming,
we'll talk about what you are doing.

>Again, courtesy is a two way street. But the victims of the malformed
>posts are the _senders_.

And I will tell you again, since you didn't bother reading it the first
time, many of the poeple Tom flamed for being scummy users of scummy
software had posted properly formatted articles. There was NOTHING
wrong with them, except they had an X-Mailer header. They might have asked
a simple question, but that had nothing to do with the newsreader.

>And they're entitled to their opinions. But that doesn't change the fact
>that:

And none of those facts change the fact that insulting people for no
reason is not even close to helping them.


Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <34E8478E...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>> You tell me, exactly, what I was supposed to be grateful
>> for in the fable Tom posted. Was I supposed to be grateful that he
>> compared all of us to dirty beggars and shoeless children?
>
>Tom did not compare you, or anyone else, to dirty beggars. He simply
>posted a fable which had some resemblance to what is happening on
>this group.

Very good. You contradicted yourself in just two sentences. If there is
some "resemblance", there is a comparison.

>No I do not exclude myself, but then I did not take it personally
>either.

That's nice. Some people take personal insults personally. In any case,
was this the part I was to be grateful for?

>oo, you seem so wound up, belive me it is not worth it, just calm down

You seem to be a part of this discussion, Mr. Barr. Are you calm?

Now, I notice, you were not able to tell me what I was to be so grateful
for, so your comment about "ungrateful" earlier must have been a typo.

>I can assure you that there are *very* few people in this group
>who would agree that Tom's purpose of reading this group is for
>anything other than to help.

Then his actions do not match his purpose.


Graham Barr

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

Mark Kramer wrote:
>
> In article <34E8478E...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
> >Mark Kramer wrote:
> >> You tell me, exactly, what I was supposed to be grateful
> >> for in the fable Tom posted. Was I supposed to be grateful that he
> >> compared all of us to dirty beggars and shoeless children?
> >
> >Tom did not compare you, or anyone else, to dirty beggars. He simply
> >posted a fable which had some resemblance to what is happening on
> >this group.
>
> Very good. You contradicted yourself in just two sentences. If there is
> some "resemblance", there is a comparison.

But it was you who decided to compre yourself with the beggars,
no where in the text did Tom say that *all* the people on this group
were the beggars, that was your interpretation. Different people
interperet things differently. You decided to take this fable
as a personal insult.

> >No I do not exclude myself, but then I did not take it personally
> >either.
>
> That's nice. Some people take personal insults personally. In any case,
> was this the part I was to be grateful for?

I have learnt the hard way not to take things on the net personally,
as they very rarly are personal.

> >oo, you seem so wound up, belive me it is not worth it, just calm down
>
> You seem to be a part of this discussion, Mr. Barr. Are you calm?

I am very calm as I have no problem with what Tom wrote, actually
I thought it was a little funny.

> Now, I notice, you were not able to tell me what I was to be so grateful
> for, so your comment about "ungrateful" earlier must have been a typo.

You should be grateful that there are people on this list who are
here to just "help", Tom is just one of those people.

> >I can assure you that there are *very* few people in this group
> >who would agree that Tom's purpose of reading this group is for
> >anything other than to help.
>
> Then his actions do not match his purpose.

Different people do things in different ways, once you learn to accept
that you will find it a lot easier to get on with others on the net.

Richard Bellavance

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <6c9qri$e...@fridge.shore.net>,

Nathan V. Patwardhan <n...@shore.net> wrote:
>Richard Bellavance (cha...@CAM.ORG) wrote:
>
>: Here, here ! If only more people could think of posting to Usenet as not

>: just a right (which it is), but also as an act that carries responsabilities
>
>Posting to Usenet (and having an account on someone else's machine)
>isn't a right if I recall correctly. Did I misunderstand your posting
>where I thought that you said, "posting to Usenet is a right..." in my
>interpretation? Please clarify.
>


"posting to usenet" and "having an account on someone else's machine" are two
different things. (of course, you need an account to access Usenet...)
What I meant to say is that if you have an Internet account, you have the right
to post a message to Usenet. Do note that I don't mean anyone *should* post
anything anywhere, but simply that one *can*. Maybe I should say "anyone has
the right" instead of "posting is a right" ?

Richard, whose native tongue is not english.

Russ Allbery

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

Mark Kramer <c28...@world.std.com> writes:

> I guess you didn't read the fable you are so busy defending, or maybe
> you didn't understand the allegory. The beach is this newsgroup. When
> the "Young Man" visited the beach, he didn't find anything BUT rabble.
> Graham is here. You figure the rest of it out.

There are some things on Usenet one either has to understand and accept or
ignore. Excessive interpretation followed by endless argument concerning
them accomplishes absolutely nothing. You're obsessing over trivia,
drawing conclusions that aren't warranted, and engaging in extended
detailed discussion of something that wasn't intended to be understood at
that level, and you're not even doing the newsgroup as a whole the
courtesy of answering questions in the process of doing so.

Please stop.

> Agree with you or leave. I see. There was a time on Usenet when people
> could have differences of opinion without ths sort of ultimatum.

No there wasn't. *That* part of Usenet culture, at the very least, has
remained pretty near constant for years and has been responsible for the
creation of not a few additional newsgroups.

I R A Aggie

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <EoHCF...@world.std.com>, c28...@world.std.com (Mark Kramer) wrote:

+ In article <fl_aggie-140...@aggie.coaps.fsu.edu>,
+ I R A Aggie <fl_a...@thepentagon.com> wrote:
+ >Is there anything wrong with being a "dirty beggar" or a shoeless child?
+ >Don't think so.
+
+ Then you don't agree with the fable? Tom msde it pretty clear that
+ these were the "bad guys".
+
+ >On the other hand, if they are unwilling to help themselves,
+ >why should I be bothered to help them?

+ And if they are willing to help themselves?

Then I'm willing to help them.

+ >I'm _sure_ they'll thank you. Eventually. Maybe.

+ Well, I would have thought that those who got lumped int the class of
+ "rabble" who weren't would say "thank you", but I guess you won't. Did
+ I forget to mention, YOU were on the beach the day the Young Man saw
+ all the rabble.

Yeah, I was. I was the guy on the end of the pier, catching his dinner,
offering the occasional tip or story to my fellow fishers. I didn't bother
the Young Man, unless there was a mishap with a cast of line...

+ >I myself post from one of those "wrong newsreaders". I am also very
+ >concious of my formatting...

+ Good for you. I bet you would be unhappy if you got flamed for using
+ shitty software and being clueless because you did.

Not really. You see, I have a life...

+ >+ You tell me, Mr. Barr. Which is it?
+ >
+ >I suspect that your pride has been hurt.
+
+ That is usually the result of being insulted without cause.

Its usually the result of having too much pride...

brian moore

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <34E8478E...@ti.com>,

Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> writes:
> I can assure you that there are *very* few people in this group
> who would agree that Tom's purpose of reading this group is for
> anything other than to help.

I'll disagree and even be so presumptuous as to attempt to read Tom's
motives.

I don't think he posts because he wants to help: he posts because he
thinks Perl is the coolest thing since slice(@bread) and wants others
to enjoy it as much as he does.

To do that, yes, he will help people. He will show them fun tricks with
perl; he will post Perl problems for people to ponder; he will dictate
diatribes about the Y2K hoax; he will denounce the Demon Program Launcher
for what it is (you can't really enjoy Perl as much on a non-Unix platform:
there are too many Unixisms that fit too well with Perl that you lose
on a Windows platform).

His primary motivation is to share the really-cool-toy that perl is
with everyone else, though. Helping is just a part of what he does.

(See his glossary posted here the other day about toys....)


Chipmunk

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

Nathan V. Patwardhan wrote:
>
> Mark Kramer (c28...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
> : One of those bits of netiquette hapens to involve OS flaming.
>
> Since the questions relate to a curious "OS", where things often don't
> work correctly (but people still ask for support ... and lots of it),
> I suspect that this is the heart of the problem in the OS Wars.

As opposed to the magical OS you're using, where everything always works
correctly, and you never need help from anyone else to do anything?

I suspect the heart of the problem in the OS Wars is that some people are
so blinded by loyalty to their own OS that they become unable to grasp the
fact that other OSes are in fact useful.

While I prefer certain OSes over others, I don't find it necessary to enter
into foolish debates about which OS is best.

Chipmunk

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In <6ca7qn$1...@fridge.shore.net>, on 02/16/98 at 08:33 PM,
n...@shore.net (Nathan V. Patwardhan) said:
+-----
| Richard Bellavance (cha...@CAM.ORG) wrote:
| : What I meant to say is that if you have an Internet account, you

| : have the right to post a message to Usenet.
| No, you don't. I've had many accounts over the years, and not one of these
| accounts entitled me to "right to service" on Usenet or
| *anywhere*. Don't forget that even if you have your *own* newsserver, you
| still need to get someone who will feed to you.
+--->8

(tagging onto the above, not responding to it)

Don't forget that in the U.S., it is widely believed that merely existing
automatically entitles you (a) to do anything you want and (b) to be protected
by the government from anything that anyone (including yourself) does that
might hurt you. :-(

Internet and/or Usenet access is merely a minor special case of this,
naturally, including the assumption that you can say any idiotic thing you
want and everyone is required to protect you from being flamed for it.

(Oh, yes, I know, I'm going to be flamed to hell and back for implying that
this is somehow not the natural, correct, God-given state of affairs. Tough.
If you want your mommy to protect you, run back home.)

--
use 5.004;sub AUTOLOAD{print$_{$_.++$x{$_}}}sub new{my%x;%_=map{++$a%2?$_.++$x{
$_}:$_}split(//,pack('N*',unpack('w*',unpack('u*','M@H*HP\'2"@\C`88+SE/!EA(F!'.
"A'6\$LZV0+(3;C9QRA9NAPG2&D\\G(88:KL=A0\n4AN.5W\"\"&\\[W>;H>3S>0\@A\\N\@PB\$`")
)));bless{}}$b=(new main);map{$b->_}split(//,' Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH') # :-)


Richard Bellavance

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <6ca7qn$1...@fridge.shore.net>,

Nathan V. Patwardhan <n...@shore.net> wrote:
>Richard Bellavance (cha...@CAM.ORG) wrote:
>
>: "posting to usenet" and "having an account on someone else's machine" are two

>: different things. (of course, you need an account to access Usenet...)
>: What I meant to say is that if you have an Internet account, you
>: have the right to post a message to Usenet.
>
>No, you don't. I've had many accounts over the years, and not one of
>these accounts entitled me to "right to service" on Usenet or
>*anywhere*. Don't forget that even if you have your *own* newsserver,
>you still need to get someone who will feed to you.
>

Oh, come on ! This is nitpicking in the extreme ! When you sign up with an
Internet provider, you have access to Usenet, right ? (If you don't, I
advise you to change provider) And then you can (or not) post messages to
Usenet if you want to (or not). But nobody will stop you from posting if
you want to. Nowhere is it written "thou art forbidden to cast your thoughts
onto Usenet". That's what I mean by "having the right to".

BTW, I notice that you chose not to quote the part of my message that read:

maybe I should say "has the right to" instead of "posting is a right"

Anyway, this is seriously off-topic. I don't mind continuing this by
e-mail, but I've set the followups to end this part of the thread.

Richard.

Richard Bellavance

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

In article <6cank9$l2i$2...@client3.news.psi.net>,
Abigail <abi...@fnx.com> wrote:
>
>I guess you have the legal right to post. But noone has the right to
>get his/her question answered, or to not be ridiculed for posting
>FAQs or off topic postings.
>

I never said, or even implied such a thing ! In fact, I agree completely with
the above statement. In my first message in this thread, I was pointing
out the fact that posting is something to be done responsibly. I'm not
trying to defend the posters of FAQs here...

Richard, hoping that the moderated group will become a reality.

Abigail

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

Richard Bellavance (cha...@CAM.ORG) wrote on 1630 September 1993 in
<URL: news:6c9vi7$r...@ocean.CAM.ORG>:
++
++ "posting to usenet" and "having an account on someone else's machine" are two
++ different things. (of course, you need an account to access Usenet...)
++ What I meant to say is that if you have an Internet account, you have the right
++ to post a message to Usenet. Do note that I don't mean anyone *should* post
++ anything anywhere, but simply that one *can*. Maybe I should say "anyone has
++ the right" instead of "posting is a right" ?


I guess you have the legal right to post. But noone has the right to
get his/her question answered, or to not be ridiculed for posting
FAQs or off topic postings.


Abigail
--
No one has the right not to be insulted. //John Cleese.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

In article <34E87585...@ti.com>, Graham Barr <gb...@ti.com> wrote:
>> Now, I notice, you were not able to tell me what I was to be so grateful
>> for, so your comment about "ungrateful" earlier must have been a typo.
>
>You should be grateful that there are people on this list who are
>here to just "help", Tom is just one of those people.

Ok, it took only three iterations, but we finally go to the answer:
there was nothing in that article I should have exhibited gratitude
for. It was "gratitude in general" that you found lacking because I
commented on a specific article negatively.

I'm sorry if you don't think that personal thank you notes sent via
email aren't showing sufficient gratitude.

>> Then his actions do not match his purpose.
>
>Different people do things in different ways, once you learn to accept
>that you will find it a lot easier to get on with others on the net.

Hmmm, seems like that is supposed to be a two way street, isn't it?
Some people post using netscape...


Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

In article <m3en13e...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,

Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>There are some things on Usenet one either has to understand and accept or
>ignore.

Good point. More later.

>Excessive interpretation followed by endless argument concerning
>them accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Oh, please. Tom didn't intend it to be interpreted even though he spent
the effort to post it? He didn't intend anyone to interpret his comments
about scurilous softtware to be interpreted that way? Am I to believe that
Tom does not mean what he posts?

>that level, and you're not even doing the newsgroup as a whole the
>courtesy of answering questions in the process of doing so.

I'm sorry. Which question was I asked that I didn't answer? Which
question was "The Young Man and the Beach" the answer to? Are you
seriously contending that every article posted to this discussion group
must be an answer to a perl question?

>Please stop.

This is the answer to which question? "What does Russ say when he comes
across something in Usenet he can't understand and accept or ignore"?


? the platypus {aka David Formosa}

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

In <6cank9$l2i$2...@client3.news.psi.net> abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:

[...]

>I guess you have the legal right to post. But noone has the right to
>get his/her question answered,

Thay don't even have the right to be propergated off your ISP's server.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument

Russ Allbery

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

Mark Kramer <c28...@world.std.com> writes:

> Oh, please. Tom didn't intend it to be interpreted even though he spent
> the effort to post it?

I think you'd do a lot better with allegories if you'd approach them from
an English lit perspective rather than trying to deconstruct every phrase
and then draw conclusions based on the *absence* of things. That just
isn't how to effectively understand an allegory.

> He didn't intend anyone to interpret his comments about scurilous
> softtware to be interpreted that way?

Sure. Tom doesn't like some types of software. He doesn't think people
should use those types of software. This is hardly a surprise. He was
giving out good advice while he was complaining about people's software;
if people wanted to ignore the advice because they didn't like the tone,
they were welcome to do so.

Having you start complaining about the tone of an allegory and about how
Tom was answering questions I'll note *you weren't answering* and how Tom
was helping people *you weren't helping* strikes me as hypocritical.

> Are you seriously contending that every article posted to this
> discussion group must be an answer to a perl question?

No, but it'd be kind of nice if they were about Perl, wouldn't it?

I'm going to go post about Perl now. You're invited to join me. As this
is an unmoderated group, no one's going to stop you from continuing to
whine about how you were insulted by allegories you didn't understand
rather than using the newsgroup for what it's intended for, but I really
would rather you stopped. And will be stopping now myself.

Enjoy.

Ian Boys

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

Nathan V. Patwardhan wrote:
>
> John Bollenbacher (j...@cts.com) wrote:
> : I think that long-time participants in internet and computing in general
> : forget
>
> This linewrap is atrocious. It's giving me a spasm. Quit it. Sure,
> you're one step better than a MIME posting, but only slightly. ;-)
>

It's a bug in Netscape. The problem is, you don't find out what's
happened to your post or email until someone quotes your message back
to you and you see the mess.

Here are some guidelines to help Netscape users avoid badly formatted
messages, and (hopefully) the message recipients:

1. Don't stretch the message composition window wider than than the
default 72 columns. Even though your message looks fine as
displayed, Netscape is likely to re-wrap it to 72 columns behind
your back before transmission.

2. Don't insert manual line breaks with the return key. Let Netscape
autowrap the paragraphs.

3. Don't think that just because you have turned off "Wrap long lines"
in the view menu, that Netscape will not wrap your long lines on
transmission anyway.

Some of these problems are fixed in Netscape 3.0, and maybe
Communicator, but it's hard to be certain what will work and what won't.
Best thing is to send emails to yourself and experiment until you
understand exactly how the program behaves.

I hope this helps someone. I went months before I discovered I was
sending mangled emails, and I was well annoyed when I found out.

Ian

Peter Samuelson

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

[John Bollenbacher <j...@cts.com>, with lines properly M-q'd]

> I think that long-time participants in internet and computing in
> general forget how daunting it can all be to the neophyte. Try to

> cast your mind back to your first exposure to this all. Try
> imagining yourself as a university (or high school?) freshman who has
> just heard of the incredible information to be found in newsgroups.
> Without any other assistance, you discovered how to get your browser
> to show you the contents of comp.lang.perl.misc and you have never
> seen the letters FAQ before.

It's been said before: you don't just walk into a room and start
talking without first listening to what's going on. Why should a brand
new, scary, exciting medium like Usenet be different? This is what I
don't understand.

> Being inquisitive and a self-starter you post a question not even
> knowing where your questions will go or if anyone will actually see
> them.

That would seem kind of reckless to me. Usenet _was_ a little daunting
the first time I looked around ... so I was extra-careful to follow the
rules (i.e. netiquette) -- that is to say, _learn_ the rules -- and fit
in. I don't remember ever being flamed for lack of clue.

Tom C. keeps saying this and he's right: it's culturally different now.
When I got on it was with trn from Solaris. You had to know something
about what Usenet _was_ before you got very far. No more. Ever since
the news:// layer of abstraction, Usenet looks sorta like just one more
service probably broadcast by some company out to make a buck selling
banner ads -- which puts the end-user completely out of the give-back
mindset.

I really don't mean to sound elitist. I'm trying to say it isn't
completely the end-user's fault he sounds stupid and lazy. At least in
some cases. The whole idea of presenting Usenet through an integrated
web browser (gee, thanks, Netscape) and then allowing the popular media
to erase the distinction between "Internet" and "Web" -- perhaps some
people think of Usenet as an extension to the Web now. Who can blame
'em? Who ever heard of the netiquette of web surfing?

So what to do? About Them, of course? Dunno. I like the Christiansen
approach. I really do. That is to say, politely tell people they're
doing the wrong thing. Seek to educate, as opposed to spoon-feed.
Whoever gets offended by one of Tom's posts -- which I consider helpful
and/or humorous at least 97% of the time -- he/she ought to consider a
less interactive medium, perhaps. I can tell you this: if _my_ lines
wrapped funny, _I_'d want to be told it was a problem. If _my_ subject
lines too vague, _I_'d appreciate the tip. If _my_ question was
answered in the docs I didn't even realize I had (someone made a valid
point awhile back about "*.pod" being sort of non-obvious), getting
back not only an RTFM but the specific FM to R would be great.

Quit picking on Tom, everyone. He's doing the newusers a service.
Anyone who doesn't like that sort of service -- hey, go get your money
back.

> Now return your thoughts to the present. Doesn't it seem like having a
> canned reply that explains some of the basics of the net to send to
> this soul would go some distance to furthering that person's
> education while minimizing the net bandwidth dedicated to discussing
> topics like this?

There is one, at least for the basics of c.l.p.m., which is sent to
every non-munged address that hasn't posted before. If you want to do
more -- look on news.announce.newusers for some ideas of what to
include. Then go ahead.

--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu ! psamuels>

Fisher Mark

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

1) I'm glad to see that Tom has decided to come back to the beach.

2) In meatspace, you don't walk up to people and demand things from
them. You ask them politely. The same rule applies in cyberspace.

3) When the things under consideration have some technical/skill quality
to them, it is only polite to try to find out something about that thing
before asking people questions about that thing. Libraries and
bookstores are good places to start...

As for myself, I've made only minor contributions to this group, and I
have been flamed by Tom -- but I was giving bad advice. Fortunately,
Tom was around to counter my bad advice with good advice. Given the
level of heat some people subject Tom to, I think he is generally very
forbearing with people. And:

4) If you want to do some programming, you should either learn to
program, or hire someone to program for you. Somehow, some people have
the idea that they should try to do, for example, CGI programming,
without any idea about programming. Makes as much sense as trying to
bake a cake without first learning the difference between flour and
sugar. I would ask those who read this message who are contemplating a
programming project without any background in programming, to please
start trying to get that background. You will find many people in this
group willing to help you, and help you politely, if you do the polite
thing and try to find out as much information as you reasonably can
before asking questions here. There are a lot of good resources out
there, if you have the time to look them up. And if you don't have that
time, you should hire someone who does -- you will be much more pleased
with the result in the end.
> ==========================================================
> Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics
> fis...@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN
> "Browser Torture Specialist, First Class"
>


Frank

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

On 12 Feb 1998 18:53:23 GMT, Tom Christiansen <tch...@mox.perl.com>
wrote:
(fairly accurate portrayal of usenet demise deleted)

>The chemist, dour now from the exchange, finishes his pint and goes back
>to mixing his arcane powders and potions, hoping that they at least might
>someday help the sick and the needy. Perhaps he won't return to the beach
>after all. When a simple morning stroll becomes so arduous an event as
>he has recently experienced, it really doesn't seem worth the trouble.
>
As the chemist heads back to his home he passes a dark alley and hears
a loud "psssst". A voice calls to him "Sir, I've heard you've tired
of the beach, and for good reason. Would you hear about a better
place?" Eagerly the chemist replies in the affirmative. "Well then,
many of our friends have tired of the same treatment, and we've found
another beach. This one is a secret beach, and we only let in those
we invite. I am the gatekeeper, and I have little to do but decide
who is allowed in. I'd be happy to add you to his list. Would you
care to join us?" Again the chemist answers affirmatively. "Then it
is done" says the gatekeeper, and the chemist is never seen at the old
beach again. But, although never seen, he is there, and he, and
others who frequent the secret beach, continue to invite worthy
newcomers to their place, even as the old beach continues to serve as
a magnet, attracting both foul and fair.

Frank


Tom Christiansen

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]

In comp.lang.perl.misc, Fisher Mark <fis...@tce.com> writes:
:Tom was around to counter my bad advice with good advice.

Always keep a couple blue free. :-)

--tom
--
Tom Christiansen tch...@jhereg.perl.com

It's there as a sop to former Ada programmers. :-)
--Larry Wall regarding 10_000_000 in <11...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>

Holly Sommer

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

Peter Samuelson wrote:

: It's been said before: you don't just walk into a room and start


: talking without first listening to what's going on. Why should a
brand
: new, scary, exciting medium like Usenet be different? This is what I
: don't understand.

You're not the only one. If you want to see truely rude newbies in
action, try visiting IRC on one of the larger circuits. Eek.

: That would seem kind of reckless to me. Usenet _was_ a little


daunting
: the first time I looked around ... so I was extra-careful to follow
the
: rules (i.e. netiquette) -- that is to say, _learn_ the rules -- and
fit
: in. I don't remember ever being flamed for lack of clue.

This is what's missing, IMO. The ease of use at first raised brazenness
of new users - there was still a little bit of a challenge to getting
to the point where you could post a question (anyone remember SMiLE ?)

Then, as ease increased, brazenness gave way to complacency, and soon
enough ease morphed into a "right" for some, and just a mouse-click
for most others.

I remember the first time I figured out how to use Pnews, and was
genuinely thrilled and felt a sense of accomplishment. I don't think
that is possible when clicking on a nice button that says "New Msg".

: The whole idea of presenting Usenet through an integrated


: web browser (gee, thanks, Netscape) and then allowing the popular
media
: to erase the distinction between "Internet" and "Web" -- perhaps some
: people think of Usenet as an extension to the Web now. Who can blame
: 'em? Who ever heard of the netiquette of web surfing?

I'd be right behind you 100% on this, except that I don't have a choice
at work (total firewall - only way out is through the web), and to do so
would be more hypocritical than I care to appear. At home is a different
matter, however. trn all the way :)

: So what to do? About Them, of course? Dunno. I like the


Christiansen
: approach. I really do. That is to say, politely tell people they're
: doing the wrong thing. Seek to educate, as opposed to spoon-feed.

I like it too, except Tom shouldn't feel as though he HAS to answer, any
time he winds up posting what is undoubtedly an ascerbic post, to the
person on the receiving end. Educating the newbie is important, and
something I personally have charged myself with upholding. I can't
expect anyone else to necessarily feel a sort of obligation to doing
it also, but on the other hand, I don't feel as though I need to
follow up on every newbie's question that's covered in a FM or FAQ...

Perhaps if the workload of educating newcomers were distributed a bit
more evenly amongst those here with a clue, it might feel less
oppressive
and dour to those who have been doing the lion's share, and feeling
used or annoyed? Just a thought.

: Peter Samuelson
: <sampo.creighton.edu ! psamuels>

Mmmmmmmmmmm bangpaths :) It's tempting to munge using that, rather than
the current mechanism that I have. Unfortunately, there's a whole
generation of folks who wouldn't know what to do with it, and I'd rather
not alienate a generation.

-Holly, munged, but with good reason
--
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Mark Kramer

unread,
Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/20/98
to

In article <m3wweu9...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,

Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Having you start complaining about the tone of an allegory and about how
>Tom was answering questions I'll note *you weren't answering*

I'll point this out again since you seem not to want to notice: there
was no question being answered by "the young man", nor was Tom
answering the questions being asked in many of the articles where he
complained about the software people were using to post. He simply
wanted to flame based on OS.

>and how Tom
>was helping people *you weren't helping* strikes me as hypocritical.

For you to whine that I did not answer questions that Tom didn't doesn't
strike me as hypocritical, no, not at all. Let's forget for the moment that
I wasn't replying to anyone who was asking questions and Tom was, why
not?

>> Are you seriously contending that every article posted to this
>> discussion group must be an answer to a perl question?
>
>No, but it'd be kind of nice if they were about Perl, wouldn't it?

Sure. Tell me the relevance to perl in The Young Man, and then tell me
why I am wrong to reply to it if Tom wasn't wrong to post it.

>I'm going to go post about Perl now.

Feel free. Don't use signals. They don't work.

>... but I really


>would rather you stopped. And will be stopping now myself.

Why does it seem that people claiming the high ground while complaining
about things being off topic always promise to stop posting off-topic
things themselves ... right after they post this one last off-topic
article?


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages