Ken Elliott wrote:
> A few thoughts:
>
> I think we can all agree that e-mail doesn't convey some thoughts very well,
> and some things come across the wrong way. Perhaps we should allow emotions
> to settle before responding.
>
> All of us tend to step on one another's toes (top vs. bottom posters,
DARN YOU! You should be bottom posting!
Ahem. Sorry about that. Please ignore my outburst. Heh.
> subject line editing, certain comments). I have found myself jumping in and
> pounding on some subject, when it was actually just a release of emotion
> pent-up from some other area (frustration at work, politics, relationships).
> I believe many of us do this and the smart thing would be for us to let it
> go. This can be difficult when we "push buttons" and trigger emotional
> responses.
>
> This all started because Red Hat posted what appears to be inaccurate
> information about the minimum amount of RAM required. Now, it is better
> policy to err on the high side, but the information did come from the
> vendor. Statements were made that you could actually use less. That's good
> news, if accurate. I certainly don't know. But it's up to the person who
> asked for the information to find out if _he_ can make _his_ system work.
> That's all that really matters. My history with Red Hat is poor - lots of
> installation problems. Other distros have worked much better on _my_
> hardware with _me_ doing the install. But that is no indication of the
> quality of Red Hat. It's just one statistic.
>
> It really doesn't matter if knowledge is obtained first, second or 67th
> hand. What matters is the accuracy. Inaccurate knowledge gained first hand
> is still of little or no value. Accurate information is of value, no matter
> how it is obtained. To restrict information on the basis of degree of
> separation strikes me as poor policy. I suggest we continue to offer our
> information, opinion and speculations, and recognize that those who are
> better informed are doing a service by providing "error correction". If we
> remove our egos, then we have a healthy information sharing system.
>
> There are very few rules here. Most of us have no right to make demands of
> others. We are in this for the common good. Shouldn't we treat it as such?
>
Agreed. Thanks for the voice of reason.
-- Chad --PS: Of course, the voice of reason would be better presented in bottom-posted format.
PPS: Ahem. Pardon my small "running gag" about bottom posting. The text of your email was actually complete and self-contained, and as such didn't annoy me in the least, despite being top-posted. As you point out, though, even if it did annoy me a little by being top-posted, I would be ill-served by (seriously) getting upset about it on-list. Generally, my preferred approach to dealing with top-posters is to tolerate and accept it, and ask for clarification where the practice makes context confusing. In other words: Though I am a bottom-posting bigot, I agree with your implied suggestion that we not make a federal case of such (comparatively) minor issues. We can get along, if we just respect each other in our public discussions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:18:56 EDT