Xref: utzoo comp.misc:2523 comp.unix.questions:7406 comp.unix.xenix:2388 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16143 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!iuvax!bobmon From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Questions without answers Message-ID: <9387@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Date: 5 Jun 88 20:57:41 GMT References: <50@uisc1.UUCP> <4840@teddy.UUCP> Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) Organization: Computer Science Dept., Indiana University Lines: 21 Followups-To: comp.misc "Super user" objects to people who ask for e-mail responses because they don't read the group, and John Nelson objects to something different. When the question is likely to generate some standard facts repeatedly, I agree with John. (I've taken to just saying I'll summarize any e-mail I get, since I think many/most people will post or e-mail as they choose anyway). "Super"'s point was that those who say "send me the answer because it's not worth my time to read this group" are being arrogant and rude (I guess that's redundant, but I've known people who wouldn't think so :-). I agree with this also. They are two different situations, but both are concerned with factual replies...even when the facts are wrong. I think postings are a more reasonable response when they involve matters of opinion -- then the whole thread has more the character of a _discussion_, and I think it's appropriate to throw it out in front of everyone (or no-one, occasionally). This topic is a case in point. (BTW, after noticing the newsgroups line, I'm trying to direct followups to comp.misc. Hope I got the header name correct.) -- -bob,mon "In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."