Community Service

[Bill Manning]

% In article <9n85ju$50c at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
% Bill Manning  <bmanning at ISI.EDU> wrote:
% >	e.g.  be literal. take peoples word.  if they try and 
% >	hid information, don't bother to reply, its a waste of
% >	your time and theirs.
% 
% My approach is:
% 
% be helpful.  figure out what they mean.  if they hide important
% information, ask them to supply it, it's the easiest way to solve the
% problem and doesn't make you look silly.

	And I am very greatful for you and your employeers willingness to
	provide "customer" technical support for the folks on this list
	and news group.   Someone said that the amount of "clue" remains
	constant while the Internet grows.  

% in this volunteer environment, but I prefer to be helpful; and occasionally
% I've been known to post a sarcastic reply.  But I also try to include as
% good a response as possible along with the sarcasm; I don't like to boast,
% but I think my reputation speaks well for my approach.

	It does. And you were missed when you were redirected several months
	back.

% Maybe those of you who take the "be literal" approach think that this will
% serve as a warning to other posters, who might make the same mistake.  The
% problem with that theory is that it presumes that future posters have read
% your silly response.  Considering the frequency that the same questions
% keep coming up, I think we can reasonably assume that most newbies have not
% read past posts, not even the most recent week's.

	Would it not be more helpful to encourage folks to "do their homework"
	than to wear and waste your life away answering the same questions
	multiple times aday? There certainly are more clueless, paranoid
	users these days and they emerge into an Internet that has lost its
	clear architectural foundations (NAT, views, walled gardens, etc.)
	with very powerful tools at their disposal.  

% I think there's an aphorism that goes something like: Don't try to teach a
% mule to dance.  It wastes your time and annoys the mule.

	And if folks "did their homework" instead of asking the same
	questions over and over, or using real data instead of fabrications,
	we might have something like: "Give a man a fish and he eats for 
	that meal, Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life."

% If you don't like to answer poorly-worded questions, go ahead and ignore
% them; someone like me will probably take a stab at it.  But don't waste
% everyone's time by posting "You don't own mydomain.com" responses when you
% know full well that this was not the domain he really meant.  You come off
% as either an idiot (because you couldn't tell that it was just a
% placeholder) or an asshole (because you *pretended* that you couldn't
% tell).

	How am I to know that Frodo Baggins is not the legitimate holder
	of the domain he claims?  Idiot or Asshole, just because I refuse
	to run the whois traps to try and find out if the claimed delegation
	is a placeholder?  I think not. I won't presuppose I have superiour
	knowledge, "know full well this was not the domain he meant", or
	fein stupidity, " *pretended* that you couldn't tell".  I presume that
	the question poser is honest and forthwright. And I'll answer the
	question as asked. But...

	Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. Which is 
	why I am so glad you have more tolerence, patience, and employer
	backing for this type of activity than I do.  The community, as a
	whole, is better off because of people like you.

	
% Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
% Genuity, Woburn, MA
% *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
% Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.


-- 
--bill