On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:00:46AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > This thread has developed a life of its own and will never die. Thus I > can truthfully say that I'm not trying to keep it alive :-) Well, I'm refraining from making too many posts in an attempt to send this thread to heaven speedily. I think it grows tired of our silly planet. . . > ...and then David Yitzchak Cohen said... > % > % On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:51:55AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > % > % > ...and then David Yitzchak Cohen said... > % > % > ... > % > % What's DFSG??? > % > > % > UTFW! How tough is it to look it up for yourself? > % > % FWIW - google utfw produces nothing useful, and neither does google > % acronym utfw. > > You're right; it's very secondary to STFW. Perhaps switched with UTFL :-) For all those here who're curious, but not curious enough to waste any of their own time, I invest my twelve seconds here, in the hope that I'll save y'all a lot more than twelve total seconds: UTFW == Use The Fine Web STFW == Search The Fine Web UTFL == Use The Force, Luke > % > google acronym dfsg > % > [mailing list postings ... nothing looks interesting in the 1st page] > % > google dfsg > % > [aha! first hit] > % > > % > Total time some twelve seconds. Go ahead, beat my time. > % > % That's not the point. Anybody else who read the thread not knowing much > % about Debian would encounter the same problem, forcing him to spend the > > But it *is* the point. It's completely irrelevant to mutt discussion, so > it needs no explanation. It's completely irrelevant to mutt discussion, so it shouldn't've been put here without a basic explanation, since nobody here can be expected to know it ahead-of-time, and everybody here can be expected to read the message containing it. Rather than wasting everybody's time on wild goose chases all over Google, the original poster of a message containing non-Mutt stuff should put his own twelve seconds into a basic explanation. It's rather selfish to save yourself twelve seconds at the expense of twelve seconds per person for every other member of the list, don't you think? > You shouldn't have asked it here in the first > place. He shouldn't've posted it here in the first place. He should've spent the few extra keystrokes typing the full name rather than an acronym that readers of our list can't be expected to know. That way, some of us could be content surmising the idea from the name, while those who want more info can Google for the thing itself, rather than having to sift through all the possible expansions of the acronym, trying to figure out which is/are likely to be relevant to the given discussion, and then to guess at which is likely to be the one meant by the original poster of said acronym. > % twelve seconds just locating the information, plus a few minutes to read > % through the verbose version on Debian's web. It's much easier if you > % spend your own twelve seconds either (a) giving a footnoted link, or (b) > % giving a tiny explanation (like Christoph did), saving a bunch of people > > Ah, but I didn't know what it was, so in exactly your position I went and > looked, and it was ridiculously easy. *You* should have spent your own > twelve seconds looking instead of asking. Nope, the original poster should've wasted his own twelve seconds typing out the full name, saving you (and probably many others) twelve seconds, and saving a whole bunch of messages to this list too (which should keep some vocal people happy). > % twelve seconds each, rather than saving yourself twelve seconds at the > % expense of everybody else. (Not everybody uses Debian, ya know. . .) > > That's a relief; I was worried that I was the nobody who didn't! ;-) Yeah, it's an annoyance, but oh, well. . . - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpLd5ogal7rK.pgp
Description: PGP signature