Re: [gentoo-user] Hard to find netiquette, enculturation bug. (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] GNOME: Cant logout and Lock Screen is showing different background from GNOME screensaver)

[b.n.]

Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto:
> On Montag 22 Dezember 2008, b.n. wrote:
>
>> The user is complaining of a *damn serious* problem. His emails were
>> ignored for an undocumented formatting community rule, and it made
>> impossible for him to use the mailing list, without anything alarming
>> him of the problem until late.
>
> no. His mails were ignored because nobody had an answer. Shown by the fact
> that nobody complained about his triple posting or html mails.

It has been said more than once that there is people that automatically
trashes html emails.
So maybe someone had an answer: but he will never know, because these
mails never went to intended recipients.

>> I do not use html email myself, but what happened to him is surely plain
>> wrong.
>
> no, it is just 'life'.

Hey, being murdered in the streets too is 'life', but I wouldn't call it
right.

>> And what's even worse, instead of people concerning about that and how
>> to solve the situation in the future, there is a lot of people giggling
>> and behaving like "OMG H4X0RZ" against the "lame n00b" , ignoring the
>> fact that not everyone in this world has been born uttering his first
>> words on Usenet.
>
> just search for 'html mail' in this list's archive, please?

And how could have him searched this if he was completely unaware that
html email was actually a problem?

>> Please. He's completely right in demanding apologies and a swift
>> reaction to the problem -because if users cannot access the list due to
>> undocumented stuff, it's a problem.
>
> no, he is absolutly wrong in demanding everything. Nobody is paid to be here
> or answer his mails. He asked something nobody was able to or willing to
> answer. The html mails were a different problem. And now he thinks that his
> problem was caused by html - instead it was caused by a lack of
> knowledge/willingness in participation.

His problem could *also* having been caused by html, if people filter
html mail out.

>> Also: to the people filtering out html mail: why? No, really, *why*? My
>> mail client is set to receive html mail and convert it in plain text
>> transparently, so I *never* see the html. Why can't you do so? It's not
>> 1990 anymore. Could you use a more serious email client? What's the
>> point in filtering out content because of formatting? You dislike html?
>> Have your client convert it in text. You think it's heavier than it
>> should be? Hmm, we live in a world of broadband and 1-Tb hard disks, and
>>   emerge -auv world, do you really complain for a couple more kb?
>
> since this list has hundreds, maybe thousands recipients - yes, complaining is
> justified.

Sure, we live in the world of bittorrent and youtube, it will surely be
some kb of text here and there that will clog the Series of Tubes.
Please, you're kidding me.

Anyone having a problem with html mail should, if wanting to be taken
seriously:
- detail explicitly why his/her mail client cannot be configured to
render html email as plain-text and explain explicitly why he/she's
locked to such a poor client
- otherwise, explicitly admit that is a personal irrational idiosyncracy
 (just like mine is: I don't like html mails, but there's no real
rational behind that, I just find plain text clearer)

>> I understand the fascination with the Ancient Unix Tools, but don't you
>> think a bit more elasticity is worthwile in 2009?
>
> elasticity like - first thinking, than attacking everybody?

He didn't attack anyone. He was extremly polite, just shocked by the
fact that no one informed him of this unwritten rule.

And almost everyone answered with contempt and poor manners.
This thread basically looks like people answering "RTFM!" to someone
complaining of the absence of the FM.

m.