Common Courtesy

You, Dave? Nah, don't believe it.(G,D,&R)

Absolutely!

Reply to
Norman D. Crow
Loading thread data ...

Mike,

I flew back from 3 days in Brisbane this afternoon, so first, let me say - you guys are nuts. I sat eating my breakfast in the mall opposite the Casino under a gas heater, and I was sweating. I had my jacket off and was surrounded by shivering, gloved-up and beanied Brisbanites. Quite a surreal experience. (wusses)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. My personal view on the DAGS is that I do not mind helping a person who asks a question. Sometimes I will do extended research to find the answer for someone, then post it for all. However, if a person appears not to know about Google searches, I will tell them. I stop helping anyone who doesn't help others or who consistently fails to show any inclination to help themselves (thankfully these are few and far between).

Thee are a number who ask "dumb" questions repeatedly, but try to help out where they can - and I don't think people mind helping them at all. There have been some others that *demand* help, abuse those who suggest Google and complain when given a Google search link - they tend to be responded to in kind. Then there are variations in between that draw a variety of responses; as you would know, that is the nature of Usenet.

Is it more rude for the group to ask someone to use Google (even occasionally), than it is for a new member to expect to be part of a group that uses Google as a resource, but not attempt to use Google in the same manner as the other members?

It takes me, on average, three to 8 seconds to initiate a Google search and get a response (usually thousands). It can take up to a minute to formulate a post and send it. I am then forced to wait a few minutes to a day to get an answer, if at all. So the use of Google is more efficient initially. If I don't find what I want, I then post a question (ok, not always - but mostly), and usually will mention that Google has been consulted.

*Not* using Google is a waste of someone's time, continued failure to use Google (even occasionally) can annoy people. In your analogy of the mates at the bar - I fully agree with you. But these are not mates, they are strangers (to the newbie). Go into any bar in Brisbane tonight and sit down with a bunch of strangers and start asking for directions. If someone offers you a map, refuse it and state that you prefer personal responses. Follow this up by asking for more directions. Some people may humour you (may), but the tone of the conversation will change. Then leave, and have a friend go in and repeat the process. For a realistic experience, choose a builder's labourers bar...

I guess in a way it is like some people's attitude to those on the dole. There are those who believe they should work to earn it, others will think it is ok to do nothing and live off the government. The general view usually lies somewhere in between. ie, at some point self help is necessary.

cheers

Reply to
Greg Millen

If it was any real effort to do a google search then that would be one thing. But it's not. One of the great benefits of USENET is that it is archived--unlike a conversation in a pub, with USENET you can get the benefit not only of the wisdom of everyone in the pub, but of everyone who has ever been in that pub. By neglecting the search you miss out on that benefit.

Also, I for one find it really annoying when someone asks a question and the first hit on the topic on Google is a huge web site devoted to answering that specific question.

Also, if you do the search you may find that there is an 800 post thread on the topic that just ran down a couple of days before, indicating that everyone involved is pretty much burnt out on it. Then there's the question that gets asked over and over and over again so that there are usually several posts active on the group at the same time from different people asking the same question, to which, if they'd bothered to read the group for a bit (listen to the ongoing discussion in your hypothetical pub) they'd already know the answer.

Further, by asking first instead of searching first, you short-change yourself. The world's expert on the topic about which you're inquiring might be a regular on the group, but be offline for whatever reason at the time that you ask--by doing the search you would find his extensive discussion of your question but by asking instead of searching you'd miss that. Or he may just be into something else now and not interested in discussing that particular topic anymore.

Or you may hit a religious issue that nobody wants to get into because every time it's come up it's degenerated into a huge flame war.

Reply to
J. Clarke

No Tom, I don't think so. Like you, I just did a search for your posts on Google and your off-topic posts far exceed the woodworking related posts -

22 to 8 for June alone.

In May you made 91 posts - of those only 6 were on-topic. My original post was made on 2 June and with the 91 to 6 ratio, I'd say my statement was correct and you sir - are the one full of crap.

I've been around here a long time also Tom and you are the one that usually takes an on-topic post, off-topic and for whatever reason, thinks that this ng is for the benefit of Tom Watson's ego building and story telling. It's getting a bit tiresome and believe it or not Tom, somebody didn't leave you in charge.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

Norman,

I think that if you verified a few facts that maybe you would find that Tom isn't really telling the whole story.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

So now we've gone from the two that you claimed previously to eight?

I can only hope that your woodworking tolerances don't vary by four hundred percent.

Regards, Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

Nice return Tom. I did a local search (using Outlook) which at the time showed only the two.

Today, I did a Google search (since you brought this up and decided to toss some dirt) and it showed 22 off-topic and 8 on-topic posts for June. May was the month I was referencing in the OP and you made 91 off-topic or otherwise self-serving posts to 6 on-topic posts where you actually answered a question for someone.

As I said at the beginning of June, it was a draw on who to put in the killfile - you, BAD or both. You're really no better than he was when it comes to distorting facts or belittling someone.

And I can assure you that my woodworking tolerances are accurate.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

You captured my sentiments as well.

Sometimes we come here with a specific question - like leaning across the bar and asking "Joe, just how did you hang that ceiling fan from a 17' high room?". Sometimes we come here with a gripe, "Did I tell you what that delivery schmoe did to me the other day?". Sometimes we come here for support, "I've got my heart set on a Pontiac Aztec. I think I'll get one, whadd'a you think?"

Sometimes I come here to read posts from individuals who's wit and skill I've grown to admire.

One not need opine on everything -- this is a rare occasion where I disagree with Mr. Self: If I tire of answering questions on rust(*) then its less energy to not respond then to compose a DAGS rejoinder.

(*) WD-40 and Scotch Brite = Less Filling/Tastes Great

Reply to
patrick conroy

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

Well, yes. Check the last time I answered a question on rust, if I ever did. Basically, I figure if the person is too lazy to help himself, then I'm entitled to be too lazy to help him, too.

That includes not telling him to DAGS.

Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken

Reply to
Charlie Self

gee, did it EVER occur to you to JUST NOT REPLY to someone who asked a question that you deem unworthy of your attention???

dave

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

On 01 Jul 2004 09:46:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) calmly ranted:

-snip-

So Grandpa Charlie gets his exercise nowadays by hurling the Websters Hernia Edition at the kids, does he?

Amen, bruddah. I often find it quicker to type in the basic search URL

formatting link
and add their description "whiny bahstids" at the end, then post it as a reply:

Try this

formatting link
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake --------------------------------------
formatting link
NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Nahmie, if'n you don't believe me, you could always DAGS...

;-D

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

Bzzzt! Wrong! At least in the olden days. I remember many times seeing the warning "don't clutter up the bandwidth with thank you responses".

That's why you often saw "thinks in advance" or "TIA" from a questioner.

It may be the that the ever-increasing speed of Internet connections may have obsoleted this convention, but even so it might explain some of the "missing" courtesies.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Reply to
nospambob

My shoes are filling up with the yellow stuff just reading a few of these entries.

peace, jo4hn

Reply to
jo4hn

"patrick conroy" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@armada.sprintco.bbn.net:

Sometimes, there are days or evenings we cannot get into the shop ourselves. Business travel. Family responsibilities. Sometimes our knees or backs hurt, or other body parts don't function as well as tools would require. Sometimes, the meds say "don't use heavy machinery". To have the Wreck here lets us, for the most part, enjoy our hobby, in spite of today's limitations. It is indeed a worldwide web...

I wish I had known of, and used the resources, including the archives, more fully, prior to purchasing some of the more expensive artifacts of wood modification in my shop. There would be more room for working and storage. And less explaining to my wife about why I needed a new blurfl.

In the archives, I have met Wreckers now passed on, and appreciated their skills, both personal and craft. Lessons written up by resident, and less resident, gurus are in my save files, and are part of my shop routine. I doubt I ever would have tried shellac, or acquired and tuned an old handplane, without the simple, clear explanations offered here, to a beginner. Thanks again, Paddy. And Paul. And Patrick. And charlie. And all of the others.

I am saddened deeply when, for whatever reason, a p*ss*ng contest breaks out. Human nature being what it is, hoever, I am not surprised. Just saddened. Because, what was enjoyable, now must be filtered, either electronically, or otherwise.

And this has been too nice a place, too much a refuge, to simply abandon.

Patriarch

Reply to
patriarch

Thu, Jul 1, 2004, 3:37pm (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie=A0Self) says: I figure if the person is too lazy to help himself, then I'm entitled to be too lazy to help him, too.

It's all word play, but I always figure being lazy is good. I consider a lazy person, one who tries to do things right the first time, so they don't have to redo them. What you term "lazy" I would call "bone idle", someone wanting someone else to do their work for them. But, I get the meaning, and totally agree.

JOAT "That's right," he said. "We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am."

- From Small Gods

Reply to
J T

Thu, Jul 1, 2004, 5:32pm (EDT+4) patriarch (patriarch= snipped-for-privacy@nospam.comcastDOTnet) says: I wish I had known of, and used the resources, including the archives,

And, for those who don't use it, here is the link to the archives. Use it.

formatting link
Actually, it's just an advanced google search.

JOAT "That's right," he said. "We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am."

- From Small Gods

Reply to
J T

I like bunnies. They taste like chicken.

So do puppies and kittie cats but it would be wrong to order up General Tso's Puppy down to the local Szechuan place.

Disregarding the accuracy of the claim.

(watson - who wishes that some non standard food items would be described as tasting like steak, instead of the ubiquitous chicken.)

Regards, Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.