Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from August 2000
Re: RFCs: two proposals for change
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Bryan C . Warnock
Date:
August 7, 2000 16:48
Subject:
Re: RFCs: two proposals for change
Message ID:
00080719503100.00776@CC789569-A
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Grant M. wrote:
>
> > I agree with Mr.Brand. Silence does not indicate apathy (it actually
> > indicates points more toward consent).
>
> No, I disagree. It also often indicates a belief that a particular point
> is so obviously wrong that it should be allowed -- nay encouraged -- to
> die a quick death. In such a case, I tend to believe that any sort of
> post (positive or negative) that might prolong the thread's life is
> probably a waste of everybody's time and will only provoke more posts.
> So I remain silent in the hope the thread will go away.
>
All those not present say 'aye.'
I find that the ostrich theory works about half the time. (p5p uses it
on me to shut me up, I think.)
The problem with no response is that there are five possible
interpretations:
1) The post is correct, well-written information that needs no
follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what
he said."
2) The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste
the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
3) No one read the post, for whatever reason.
4) No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for
whatever reason.
5) No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.
Most of the time, there's not even a group consensus on the reason. It
has to do more with the individual psyche than anything else. (For
instance, I tend to take no replies to my posts as #5, #4, #2, or #3,
in that order.)
The real issue is that the problem may not go away. Most of time, the
#2s and #4s of the world don't realize why they're being stupidiotic,
and how to best unhork themselves for all's concern.
To slightly contradict something Larry posted earlier, there is
oftentimes help in a message as simple as, "No."
> Fortunately, I trust the working group chairs[*] to exercise a
significant
> amount of judgment in such areas, so I don't worry
about it too much.
Generally speaking, I trust the UberPerlers to recognize #1. I've done
enough completely different things to recognize that #2 is often a
matter of perspective, and am a little more tolerant that most, I guess.
It's hard to differentiate among the rest.
(I disagree with both of you, so at least two of us are given false
readings to everyone else.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
(bwarnock@gtemail.net)
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next