Checking for internet connection.
in [General]
|
Prev: Class "COM" not found
Next: SQL Queries
From: Kim Madsen on 23 Dec 2009 09:20 Hi Bob Bob McConnell wrote on 23/12/2009 14:35: > From: Andy Shellam > >>> And I was pointing out that this would not be a valid >>> test when there is a caching DNS on the LAN. > >> I also pointed out how to avoid caching issues - the >> comment was aimed at the author of the message before mine. >> >>> Too much of the conversation and most of the attribution >>> was stripped too early for this to be coherent. >> Why the negativity? A question was asked and several >> possible solutions were provided based on that original >> question. All the "conversation" was relevant IMO. > > But long before it was done it was impossible to tell who had asked > which questions, who had provided which answers and who had countered > those answers. In several instances, replies appeared to be directed to > the wrong individuals. Leaving the above for a reason. I find your answer to Andy rude and offensive! Remind me not to try to help you next time. > Some people here tend to go way too far when trimming context from > replies. Yes, I know it gets difficult to read when there are more than > ten or twelve levels of attribution, but stripping all but the last > layer is even worse. No, that's called netetiquette, have a look at: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/etiquitte_1.html Quote: "When responding to E-Mail, don't quote the entire original message in your reply. Only quote the relevant parts, and only to the extent that they will help orient the recipient on your reply." (and this mail is not to start a flame war) > Removing the participants names from the top should > be a hanging offense. I don't keep copies of every message in any of the > dozens of mailing lists and news groups I follow, so there is no simple > way to go back through the conversation to figure out where it all came > from. Well, because _you_ don't wanna follow proper netetiquette doesn't mean everyone else should violate those rules, does it? :-) And a merry christmas to you. -- Kind regards Kim Emax - masterminds.dk
From: "Bob McConnell" on 23 Dec 2009 09:55 From: Kim Madsen > Bob McConnell wrote on 23/12/2009 14:35: >> From: Andy Shellam >> >>>> And I was pointing out that this would not be a valid >>>> test when there is a caching DNS on the LAN. >> >>> I also pointed out how to avoid caching issues - the >>> comment was aimed at the author of the message before mine. >>> >>>> Too much of the conversation and most of the attribution >>>> was stripped too early for this to be coherent. >>> Why the negativity? A question was asked and several >>> possible solutions were provided based on that original >>> question. All the "conversation" was relevant IMO. >> >> But long before it was done it was impossible to tell who had asked >> which questions, who had provided which answers and who had countered >> those answers. In several instances, replies appeared to be directed to >> the wrong individuals. > >> Some people here tend to go way too far when trimming context from >> replies. Yes, I know it gets difficult to read when there are more than >> ten or twelve levels of attribution, but stripping all but the last >> layer is even worse. > > No, that's called netetiquette, have a look at: > http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/etiquitte_1.html > > Quote: "When responding to E-Mail, don't quote the entire original > message in your reply. Only quote the relevant parts, and only to the > extent that they will help orient the recipient on your reply." The problem arises when too many of the relevant parts are also removed, which happened far too often on this thread as well as others. When the core context is not retained, the conversation drifts and quickly becomes useless to either the early posters or later readers. I did not mean to be rude, but to point out what I see as a serious problem that has been growing on this list recently. On the other hand, I have not had my cup of hot chocolate yet this morning, so am probably not completely awake yet. Bob McConnell
From: Kim Madsen on 23 Dec 2009 11:01 Bob McConnell wrote on 23/12/2009 15:55: > The problem arises when too many of the relevant parts are also removed, > which happened far too often on this thread as well as others. When the > core context is not retained, the conversation drifts and quickly > becomes useless to either the early posters or later readers. just don't delete mails that are recent, delete after 3 months for instance? And if possible (I see some Exchange dirt in the mailheader :-)) use a mailclient that supports thread, I use Thunderbird and when subscribing to maillists this is really cool, I have a quick overview of the mails on the subject. > I did not mean to be rude, but to point out what I see as a serious > problem that has been growing on this list recently. On the other hand, > I have not had my cup of hot chocolate yet this morning, so am probably > not completely awake yet. Okay, explanation excepted, E-mails can easily be misunderstood :-) May you have a merry Christmas (grab another cup of choco, just in case ;-)) -- Kind regards Kim Emax - masterminds.dk
From: Kim Madsen on 23 Dec 2009 11:04
Kim Madsen wrote on 23/12/2009 17:01: > Okay, explanation excepted, E-mails can easily be misunderstood :-) May > you have a merry Christmas (grab another cup of choco, just in case ;-)) correction: accepted Now _I'M_ gonna get a cup of chocolate :-) -- Kind regards Kim Emax - masterminds.dk |