tlug: posting (was fish)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Jack" == Jack Morgan <yojack@example.com> writes:

    ST> "Able to think" --> "wanting to learn (as opposed to `just
    ST> fixing' whatever is currently keeping you from getting
    ST> something done)".

    Jack> I think this is a good point, but at times I'm not sure when
    Jack> to post my problem and when to just try to figure it out
    Jack> myself. Any suggestions?

The standard ones are:  read man pages, FAQs, search the Web.  Think.
Get copies of logs, error messages, backtraces.  Summarize (but not
too much; if you don't understand it, leave it in).

Then post.  It's not unreasonable for you to spend 5 to 50 times as
much time as you think it would take a guru to answer the question.
(Where on that scale you fall depends on how much you want to learn.
Remember, guru time is scarce---not more valuable than yours, but
rather valuable to others as well as to you; your study time is
valuable only to you until you start answering FAQs yourself ... which
is just a matter of time.  Usually remarkably short. ;)

And often enough you'll vastly underestimate the effort it costs
others to answer your questions.  I spent an hour yesterday on Selva's
question about MTA standards.  Not because I'm a nice guy, but because
I thought I knew ... and found out I didn't.  So I went and reread a
bunch of RFCs.  Posting what I'd learned was almost an afterthought.

When I find a question that deserves a snappy answer because no
homework was done, and can be fully and accurately answered in ten
words charged to 50K volts, the temptation to jump on it is
... strong.  Chris _did_ answer that question.  (Not fully; I can't
really see a newbie parsing that error message.  Chris's artistic
sense can be faulted at times. :-)

And if the question is easy to answer and uninteresting (ie, a FAQ),
does it really deserve more than "RTFM" as an answer?  Why?  If the
answer is good enough, heck, you can spend some time as FAQmeister,
and make sure you get your polite version of "RTFM" posted before the
piranha show up.  (Been there, done that, got tired.  Now old and
cranky.)

By the way, most of the time it's not worth working that hard.  Just
post.  :-)  Be prepared to be flamed, but why worry?  Flame is just
hot air (and few on this list produce enough to soften butter).

But if it's more than just flame, if there's a homework assignment,
you should do that.  _That's what you wanted in the first place_,
don't throw it away.

    CS> Yes, that too ... but I was trying to imply that if one posts
    CS> a plea for help that strongly resembles the parody that Simon
    CS> posted last Friday, then one should expect a certain amount of
    CS> harrassment ;)

    Jack> As for myself, it is REALLY discouraging to get slammed by
    Jack> someone for something you posted. Isn't there another way to
    Jack> teach someone that what their doing isn't appropreate? If
    Jack> for example i get a negative sarcastic commenty to a dumb
    Jack> question, I'll think your not a nice person instead of what
    Jack> i did wasn't correct!

Get used to it.

:-)  That was a joke, OK?  Still, it's good advice.

We _aren't_ "nice people."  We're people who happen to know things you
want to find out at the moment.  How we choose to convey that
information is up to us.

If that sounds arrogant ... I'm not surprised; it is.  Smart computer
people tend to be arrogant.  Sure, there are nice folks like Larry
Wall around, but how often does Larry answer your questions?  Jamie
"you can't play in my sandbox unless you can flame 'til bile flows
from your eyeballs" Zawinski is the more common type.  Jamie's flames
are beautiful; they're so educational, accurate and carefully
researched, yet calculated to drive the questioner into a blind rage
so that he can't benefit at all from the information.  (FYI I admire
Jamie's art, I don't aspire to it.)

And there's the social benefit to arrogance.  How many times do we see
posts where people say "I wish I could contribute"?  That is so
useless!  _Everybody_ contributes (if only to provide a substrate for
claw-sharpening).  That's the Rule.  But think about it: who answers
the most questions?  The arrogant folks who think they know it all.
It takes a little arrogance to think you can answer someone else's
question.  Sometimes a question that only requires minimal arrogance
to answer attracts one of us "towers of self-esteem".  C'est la vie;
Newbie, R.I.P.

There's also the "conserve resources" aspect.  We want to save our
advice for "people like us."  The "want to learn" part is uppermost,
but we also tend to prefer people who are fun to play with.  On the
Internet, flaming people you've hardly met (even virtually) is just
mild banter.  (Often, an entrance exam, as Jamie puts it.)  At least
it was back when I joined.  I miss those days....

That may not be very nice, either, but, oh, so human.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai Meeting: June 16 (Fri), 19:00   Tengu TokyoEkiMae
Next Technical Meeting: July 8 (Sat) 13:30   Topic: TBA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp        Sponsor: Global Online Japan