Re: when replying, use envelope recipient
Patrick,
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:56:08PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> Agreed to a point. The text of the OP's request indicates a grasp of
> more than just the basics.
Quite frankly, my comments were largely aimed in your direction... you
are one of the people who is, in my opinion, regularly much too quick
to jump on the "RTFM" train. I'm tempted to search the archives for
"Patrick Shanahan RTFM" to see how many results come up... In fact,
doing such a search on Google is somewhat revealing:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Patrick+Shanahan+RTFM
One need not even click on the links to see the pattern. At least it
isn't just this list... you're pretty consistent about it. One
wonders why you bother to post on mailing lists at all.
> He even stated that he is completely able to answer his own
> question, but that it would be easier to ask someone else.
Yes, he did say those things, and who can blame him? Mailing lists
have become an environment of flame wars, condecension, and generally
insulting behavior. God knows in the past I've been involved in far
too many of those myself, and I finally came to the conclusion that
the Internet would be a much better place if people like me would shut
the hell up, or at least change their attitude. If you're not going
to help people, why say anything at all?
I'm sure everyone who posts a message on this list can find the answer
to their question on their own, EVENTUALLY, after perhaps hours of
searching... But doing so can be exhausting and monumentally
time-consuming. If someone is standing by, ready and willing to
provide the answer at a moment's notice, why should anyone need to go
through all that? It is a complete waste of time, and being told,
time and time again, to RTFM only serves to frustrate, infuriate, and
alienate people.
I'm not saying that a glance at the manual, or at list archives, isn't
called for. And yes, this question IS one that has been asked before
on this list. But, like a lot of questions, it isn't one that's easy
to phrase in such a way that a quick search on-line or in the manual
will quickly and easily turn up the answer. That is true for a great
many of the questions that are asked here; even ones that get asked a
lot.
> Thus, "totally wrong for Mutt" is erroneous.
I'm not surprised you feel that way. That's a big part of why I wrote
that message in the first place.
> *Some* people need help, the OP requested someone to solve his
> problem because it would be *faster* for him.
So? You make it sound like trying to solve problems quickly is Evil.
I don't see a problem here. He asked his question, someone was happy
to answer him, problem solved. Hooray! The mailing list works as
intended... and there was much rejoicing. =8^)
You're right: Sometimes it is more useful to point people to the
right section of the manual. This is not such a case. The answer to
the question is short, and doesn't require a lot of explanation.
Finding what is needed in the manual, without knowing what it is, by
contrast, is long, difficult, frustrating, and totally unnecessary,
thanks to this mailing list. Most users do not also want to be system
administrators; they just want to get some work done. For such
people, reading through endless pages of documentation to find the
simple answer to their questions is nothing but an obstacle, and not
an enjoyable one. This is precisely why lists like this one exist.
And FWIW, I do recognize that you sometimes do offer useful
information. But I think that everyone could do without all the
attitude that sometimes goes along with it:
http://does-not-exist.org/mail-archives/mutt-users/msg04761.html
Have a nice day. :)
--
Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.