RE: *** ADMIN: JT

<I don't know if I'm being moderated on all lists, or just the Tech list>

Walden,

In order to avoid a long thread on what that perfect balance is regarding
proper netiquette, allow me to answer that question.

Yes, I was warned back on 1/2 for a post to Jill Grine.  This is David's
"house", and I live by his rules.  I have no problem with that.

What I sometimes have a problem with is when people send in flames (and use
bandwidth) telling me I'm not using bandwidth properly.  Leif pointed the
logical fallacy of this, in his post last night...


Look at the post that caused David to decide to moderate me:

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of jt
| Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:03 PM
| Subject: RE: *** ADMIN: New list -- LINUX101
|
|
| Thank you kindly, sir...!  I am woefully in need of such a list.
|
| (I know...  just "worthless comments" takin' up bandwidth...  I
| don't care.)


David over-reacted, IMHO, because he is extremely aversive to getting
complimented in public.  But the reason he decided to moderate me was,
ironically, because I was TOO CONCISE, and didn't provide ENOUGH COMMENTARY.

That was the part where I stated "I don't care" which, naturally, offended
David.

Here's what I intended to say, but in an attempt to appease the "bandwidth
police" did not say:


~~~~~~~~~~~

I've gotten four replies, off list, prior to David's.  Two were positive
about my comments, and two negative.  One said "I'm pretty sure the large
majority here prefer concise posts" and another said, (in reply to a
compliment to david rather than about my posts) "It's not hard to guess who
a large proportion of us are.  :o)"


I believe David's vote is the one that counts...  Right?

So who's to say who's right and wrong about how to post?  Well, I am, of
course...;-D  Because, as it happens, I've expanded the number of lists and
forums I'm participating in.  So both David and I will benefit by my reduced
postings...


~~~~~~~~~~~

But there's some powerful ignorance going on here, also.

I assume folks like Pete, Mary Jo, and John Earl were properly warned, as
the point seems to have been lost on them.

Some folks, obviously, believe it's OK to waste bandwidth posting
sharp-tongued comments and flames, but not OK to use it for light-hearted,
positive banter...  This is an incorrect view, for the following reason.

Negative comments, and flames in particular, encourage lurker's to lurk...
What some call "worthless comments" encourages lurkers to participate.

===> I have two goals, equal in priority, in all my posts:  to get to an
answer to a particular question, and encourage lurkers to participate more.
These are diametrically opposed goals, of course.  The former requires
concise, binary-moded thought.. the latter, a more human touch...  Hard to
find that proper balance, and I haven't always succeeded.

I fully admit I've been chatting excessively...  That encourages some folks,
but ticks others off...

But I got the priorities in the right order which some have failed,
consistently, to get right.  The best programmers are extremely good at
binary-moded thinking, which leaves out the human touch completely.  But the
BETTER coders..  Tom, Chuck, Joe (oooops.. shouldn't have started naming
names)...  Well these folks add the human touch, which encourages folks to
take the risk of sending in their (possibly incorrect) views...

The BETTER coders got the priorities "extremely right":

Priority #1 to deriving good solution to problem:  Good communication.

Priority #2 to deriving good solution to problem:  Good concise logic.


I understand the priorities, in their correct order.. but don't always
execute well...  I recently joined a list for a beta for Radio UserLand.
These guys got it write...  Extremely professional, short positive
comments...

===> CRITICISM ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER PERSON...  This, IMV, is the
key...  This is what I see as lacking in some posts, and why I counter-react
with excessive chatter.  Both are wrong, and AFAIK why David chose to
moderate my posts..


All that to say...  When I said "I don't care", all I meant was I don't care
that it's mathematically impossible for me to please all the people, all the
time...  This is due to the fact that my posts attempt to achieve
diametrically opposed goals.


>From the post I sent David, privately:

-----Original Message-----
From: jt [mailto:jt@ee.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:53 PM
To: David Gibbs
Subject: RE: *** ADMIN: New list -- LINUX101


Oooops... Hit Send too soon...

Okay...

<snip>

===> Won't happen very often in the future, however, as I don't want to
trouble you with the burden of moderating my stuff.  Again, please accept my
apology...  (And if I do post, I will try MUCH, MUCH, harder...  You will
see that, in the future.)

jt