🚀 go-pugleaf

>>... we don't read manuals.  We shouldn't have to read manuals.

>No, we should spend our time and net $$ sending questions to people who
>HAVE read the manuals. I love this mentality, which seems to abound in
>all computer labs

The answer, of course, is simple. If someone asks a question you think is
brain-dead, you don't answer it, even if you know the answer. That way you
don't waste your time. This has been my basic philosophy on the net for
years -- I answer the questions that I think deserve an answer. If someone
else considers it worth answering, let them spend the time posting the answer.

I take this one step further, too. I categorically refuse to answer
questions that are prefaced by "I don't read this group, but..." for two
reasons. One is that 90% of the time the question has been asked before and
they'd *have* the answer. The other is that if they aren't reading the
group, they can't be contributing to it -- and as far as I'm concerned, a
grop on USENET is a cooperative effort. Everyone should be willing to give
what they can and take what they need. Someone prancing in and asking a
question without bothering to read the group, by definition, can't give
anything back.

If you don't agree with something someone is doing, answer it with silence.
It wastes a lot less of your time than trying to 'educate' the people (which
doesn't work) and total silence is as strong an editorial against a given
abuse of the network as any flamewar.

chuq (down with net.vampires!)


Chuq Von Rospach      =|=     Editor,OtherRealms     =|=     Member SFWA/ASFA
         chuq@apple.com   =|=  CI$: 73317,635  =|=  AppleLink: CHUQ
      [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]