Re: Netiquette Guidelines

"Måç" <H@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OCe$aB2RFHA.1348@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Are these guidelines still the ideal in this NG (or any others for that
> matter)?
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
>
> If not, and I feel a lot of these old guidelines are out of date, what are
> to reference?
>
> I see a lot of regular posters here that don't follow the spirit of this
> document. Obviously they feel the are free to follow some other "code"
that
> may have evolved - but is it documented?

Just because it has some internet site (documentation), doesn't make it
valid.

>
> Extracts -
>
> A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in
what

Nope, not enough information flushes out many solutions. None of which may
be accurate as enough information was not provided to describe the problem.

> you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these "flames")
> even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised
if
> you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.
>

Flamers should be dealt with by the news server maintenance personnel by
deleting those flames from the server if the flame is rude enough.

Speaking politely in provoking a flame is just as bad.

Personal attacks, rather than attacking the information, should always be
ignored.

> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
> the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the

MS decided by default (MS OE) to put the response at the top of the response
post. So, OE users have to manually force the response at the bottom.

Responding to parts of a post, inserting the response underneath each part
as I'm doing now, is appropriate when it calls for a response to each part.
Rather than making all the response at the bottom. Its less messy for the
reader as he/she doesn't have to bounce back and forth from the top then the
bottom to understand.

> original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
> they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
proliferated
> by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to
see
> a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps
> everyone. But do not include the entire original!

This is something abused to promote a point. Avoiding including important
information from the original post, in the respose, in order to make a point
that is not accurate to the entire context of the original post.

Rather, the respondent uses part of the original post to promote their own
agenda rather than to answer the queston or respond to the entire
information provided by the original post. This ruins the entire thread.

>
> If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
> responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
> the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group
> might have some interest, you may summarize for them later.

So if a respondent places inaccurate information on the response, one does
not point that out for the group of readers is what this promotes. This
promotes urban legends, mis and dis information. Only the email recepient
receives the proper information.

>

>
> Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
> gratuitous replies to replies.

Poppy***. A simple thank you response does many things. One being that it
promotes participatiion by others that don't normally as they feel more
confident in asking questions since they know suitable solutions were
provided.

>
> Mac
>
>
>
>
>


.

Loading