Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it - Linux

This is a discussion on Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it - Linux ; "David Schwartz" wrote in message news:a64a1d26-e383-4d3e-993d-308806b6c44d@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 18, 10:58 am, "Peter Olcott" > wrote: > >> If I was ever trolling I would have returned the immature >> demeanor that I was provided. All that I wanted was ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it

  1. Re: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it


    "David Schwartz" wrote in message
    news:a64a1d26-e383-4d3e-993d-308806b6c44d@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
    > On Dec 18, 10:58 am, "Peter Olcott"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> If I was ever trolling I would have returned the immature
    >> demeanor that I was provided. All that I wanted was a
    >> specific answer to a specific technical question. I just
    >> don't see why this is so difficult for so many people
    >> here.

    >
    > Because USENET is a give and take. It is not your personal
    > support
    > service where a pantheon of experts labor for your
    > pleasure.
    >
    >> It is certainly not this difficult on the Windows groups.
    >> Since there is a difference there must be a reason for
    >> the
    >> difference. When I ask what is the reason for this
    >> difference, the question is not at all rhetorical.

    >
    > Perhaps you were less obnoxious on those groups. Perhaps
    > you had a
    > history of giving on those groups that excused your
    > taking. Perhaps
    > you were simply lucky.
    >
    > DS


    (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) No

    On all of the microsoft.public.* groups people either
    directly answered the question asked or simply ignored the
    question. In no case (of many hundreds of cases) was any
    response ever even slightly disrespectful.



  2. Re: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it


    "David Schwartz" wrote in message
    news:bb24db6e-25ec-49e4-b760-bb3ca433bb24@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    > On Dec 18, 11:56 am, "Peter Olcott"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I top post because it is more clear what I am responding
    >> to

    >
    > Actually, that makes it impossible to tell what you're
    > responding to.
    >
    >> with all of the verbose signature lines top positing
    >> places
    >> my response closer to the material that I am responding
    >> to.

    >
    > Huh? You can cut other people's signatures and yours goes
    > at the very
    > end.
    >
    >> When there is only a single line signature, I generally
    >> bottom post.

    >
    > Cut anyone else's signature or leave it just above yours.
    > I'm not sure
    > I understand what you think the problem is. Top posting
    > destroys
    > conversation flow.
    >
    > DS


    This is an application development group and you are not
    accustomed to a stack?



  3. Re: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it

    * Peter Olcott fired off this tart reply:

    > This is an application development group and you are not
    > accustomed to a stack?


    I believe the operative word here is "sneakerful".

    --
    Tux rox!

  4. Re: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it

    LIFO Queue

    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:fz0aj.26304$_m.21712@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* Peter Olcott fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> This is an application development group and you are not
    >> accustomed to a stack?

    >
    > I believe the operative word here is "sneakerful".
    >
    > --
    > Tux rox!




  5. Re: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess myreason for asking it

    On Dec 19, 6:43*am, "Peter Olcott" wrote:

    > This is an application development group and you are not
    > accustomed to a stack?


    I'll tell you right off that I have no answer to your original
    question. I will tell you that everyone who posts here does so
    independently, and therefore any personality or character abstraction
    derived from a set of posts in reply to a specific topic is
    fundamentally flawed, and therefore has no business as thread
    content. As you should notice, some responders merely answered your
    question, whereas others chose to address your methods of obtaining
    what you want.

    For someone who has no time for an endless debate, you've certainly
    done your share of endless debating. As I recall, you asked for an
    answer with no non-answer content, which implies that you require no
    politeness or respect in a response. Additionally, threads and their
    associated posts belong to everyone; not the originator of the
    thread. In other words, someone who answers your question after all
    of this doesn't have to lose their self-respect because they answer
    the question for everyone. I doubt that anyone here is sending you a
    personal email with the answer, though.

    From now on I recommend you control your inability to take criticism,
    or at least hide it when asking for help. You display it painfully in
    your responses because you just can't resist responding to every
    little comment made about your posts. If you don't believe me, ask
    yourself why you've gotten so many off-topic responses and why you
    haven't taken the time to thank those who answered you. You seem more
    concerned with your pride than you do with the question you asked.

    If you insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself, keep defending
    yourself by making sweeping statements about the users of this
    newsgroup and the Linux development community as a whole. The users
    here haven't acted as a group to address you or the newsgroup and not
    many people here are foolish enough to think that that's the case. No
    development community has endorsed or taken responsibility for any
    post in this thread, to include mine. If you'd like to hear something
    productive among all of the criticism, address this and any other
    group with respect and let those individuals who insist on
    disrespecting you and others do so aside in embarrassing isolation.
    Kevin Barry

  6. Re: Please simply answer this question and don't second guess my reason for asking it

    "Peter Olcott" writes:
    > "David Schwartz" wrote in message
    > news:bb24db6e-25ec-49e4-b760-bb3ca433bb24@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >> On Dec 18, 11:56 am, "Peter Olcott"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I top post because it is more clear what I am responding to

    >>
    >> Actually, that makes it impossible to tell what you're responding to.
    >>
    >>> with all of the verbose signature lines top positing places my
    >>> response closer to the material that I am responding to.

    >>
    >> Huh? You can cut other people's signatures and yours goes at the very
    >> end.
    >>
    >>> When there is only a single line signature, I generally bottom post.

    >>
    >> Cut anyone else's signature or leave it just above yours. I'm not
    >> sure I understand what you think the problem is. Top posting destroys
    >> conversation flow.
    >>
    >> DS

    >
    > This is an application development group and you are not
    > accustomed to a stack?


    Would the fact that this group is an app-devel one be an excuse to
    represent your next post by a hash-table?!

    --
    Sergei.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3