On Saturday 04 October 2008 12:09:04 William L. Maltby wrote: > On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 08:32 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Friday 03 October 2008 21:33:09 Vandaman wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > On some mailing lists, long time users are put off by the > > > > > > flood of posts by newbies who don't even conform to the list > > > > > > guidelines. Some pay back by not replying to those in violation > > > > > > without as much as a hint. > > > > And that is rude and thoughtless. Newbies don't necessarily know how > > and where to look for help. > > Respectfully, I disagree. There is an expectation (apparently > unreasonable in today's society) that newcomers will make themselves > aware of the courtesies and protocols used on a given list. If they > haven't done so, or choose to make no effort to conform, why should > *our* valuable time be wasted on such? It is better to only waste the > OPs time. Having said that, most denizens do make an effort to point the > offender in the right direction and even help. But all have limits > unique to them. Their time is not for others to waste. > > So, I don't consider it rude and inconsiderate. It is, IMO, very > courteous and considerate when compared to some alternatives I've seen > used. It is a matter of personal choice. > > Just as in the real world, there is certain behavior expected from those > with whom I *choose* to interact. Rudeness tends to be POV-centric. > Then we must agree to differ. I consider it thoughtful to tell them once what is expected of them - and politely, which is not always the case on this or any other list I've read. Of course if they persist in breaking the rules, then they ask to be ignored IMO Anne -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20081004/da88d904/attachment-0005.sig>