BillW50

On 3/6/14 4:39 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Alek Trishan wrote:

On 3/6/2014 4:22 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Adam Kubias wrote:

If the point of communication is to get information across, and the tone
of posts causes people to rebel against the information, why bother
writing anything at all Bill?

Depends on whether you feel compelled to coddle other users while
dispensing information to them. ... They're getting FREE help from
unpaid volunteers from a worldwide community which means they will
experience a wide range of persona.

Isn't there a difference between coddling and just being polite? Why
should anyone who is helping be abrasive? That's the antithesis of being
helpful!

I've found being neutral in a reply can offend others who think I'm
supposed to placate their ego. Say you tell them a product won't do
what they want. It's a fact. They get perturbed at you for telling
them.

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software or whose Usenet service they use. I'm not going to pretend I'm
blind to their spam.

Then there are the folks that think there is a magic bullet that with a
simple mouse click will fix their problem. When you ask them to try
safe mode in IE or Windows or Thunderbird or to do other diagnostics,
they aren't interested in actually solving the problem so you wonder why
they chose to waste your time. So, yes, for those infant tuggers not
willing to actually work on the problem then they'll get a retort for
being so lazy. Changing a tire on a wheel is easy but it can require
some effort.

No one is getting paid here so just what is the impetus that they have
to be polite (which usually means coddling to salve their ego)? They
aren't paying anyone for the help. They're not a customer so "the
customer is always right" has no basis here. Have YOU ever found
EVERYONE at a helpdesk, IT folks, support center, or wherever you seek
help to sugar coat a solution? And that's representing a very small
group of paid helpers. Usenet is free help. Usenet is a worldwide mesh
network so personalities of all types appear here. And Usenet is an
anarchy where you don't get to dictate to anyone. Some chaff must be
expected in Usenet; else, use moderated forums for a more cuddly
experience.

The impetus at the beginning is just good manners. If that's not
appreciated, then all bets are off.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0

Adam Kubias wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
4 valid reasons for being abrasive
These are all responses to someone who is asking for help. Are you
abrasive to those who are not asking for help and not saying anything
insulting?

What I'm saying is cull the helpful info present in a response whether
you care for the poster's tone or not. Tossing away information just
because you don't care for someone's attitude is wasteful so why bother
coming to the anarchy called Usenet?

I'm an engineer, I'm immune to chaff - but I also recognize that it
exists and it can create problems in communication.

But you were in a paying job where you had to be nice to your paying
customers. I've seen tech folks take some nasty calls from customers
while trying to remain composed. No one has to do that here.

Ken Springer wrote:

On 3/6/14 4:39 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Alek Trishan wrote:

On 3/6/2014 4:22 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Adam Kubias wrote:

If the point of communication is to get information across, and the tone
of posts causes people to rebel against the information, why bother
writing anything at all Bill?

Depends on whether you feel compelled to coddle other users while
dispensing information to them. ... They're getting FREE help from
unpaid volunteers from a worldwide community which means they will
experience a wide range of persona.

Isn't there a difference between coddling and just being polite? Why
should anyone who is helping be abrasive? That's the antithesis of being
helpful!

I've found being neutral in a reply can offend others who think I'm
supposed to placate their ego. Say you tell them a product won't do
what they want. It's a fact. They get perturbed at you for telling
them.

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software or whose Usenet service they use. I'm not going to pretend I'm
blind to their spam.

Then there are the folks that think there is a magic bullet that with a
simple mouse click will fix their problem. When you ask them to try
safe mode in IE or Windows or Thunderbird or to do other diagnostics,
they aren't interested in actually solving the problem so you wonder why
they chose to waste your time. So, yes, for those infant tuggers not
willing to actually work on the problem then they'll get a retort for
being so lazy. Changing a tire on a wheel is easy but it can require
some effort.

No one is getting paid here so just what is the impetus that they have
to be polite (which usually means coddling to salve their ego)? They
aren't paying anyone for the help. They're not a customer so "the
customer is always right" has no basis here. Have YOU ever found
EVERYONE at a helpdesk, IT folks, support center, or wherever you seek
help to sugar coat a solution? And that's representing a very small
group of paid helpers. Usenet is free help. Usenet is a worldwide mesh
network so personalities of all types appear here. And Usenet is an
anarchy where you don't get to dictate to anyone. Some chaff must be
expected in Usenet; else, use moderated forums for a more cuddly
experience.

The impetus at the beginning is just good manners. If that's not
appreciated, then all bets are off.

Typically if the poster is neutral then so am I. Some folks come here
ranting as if it's our fault or they think this is some free venue to
the program owner's tech support. If they think that's the tone that
will cultivate help then they should expect that same tone back. I
figure that's how they want to "communicate".

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:39:11 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Alek Trishan wrote:

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software

It may not be the user sending out that spam; Avast does it for you at
no charge! following a recent update. It is on my to do list to kill
that signature.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:50:15 +1100, Monty wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:39:11 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Alek Trishan wrote:

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software

It may not be the user sending out that spam; Avast does it for you at
no charge! following a recent update. It is on my to do list to kill
that signature.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


If the avast! message does not now appear below this reply, then the
following chain of actions was responsible for its removal:

From the avastUI Settings Active Protection Mail Shield
Settings (wrench iconl) Behavior - General section "Uncheck"
Insert note into clean message (outgoing)

On 2014-03-06 11:09 PM, Monty wrote:

If the avast! message does not now appear below this reply, then the
following chain of actions was responsible for its removal:

From the avastUI Settings Active Protection Mail Shield
Settings (wrench iconl) Behavior - General section "Uncheck"
Insert note into clean message (outgoing)

Nice! I will save that.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:39:11 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

I've found being neutral in a reply can offend others who think I'm
supposed to placate their ego. Say you tell them a product won't do
what they want. It's a fact. They get perturbed at you for telling
them.

You've either worked in a tech support call centre, or been married.

I can tell. :-)

Rod.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:21:08 -0500, Alek Trishan
wrote in

On 3/6/2014 4:22 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Adam Kubias wrote:

If the point of communication is to get information across, and the tone
of posts causes people to rebel against the information, why bother
writing anything at all Bill?

Depends on whether you feel compelled to coddle other users while
dispensing information to them. A curmudgeon that doles out help is
still helping but isn't interested in stroking thin-skinned egos. Some
posters are so frail that if you don't coddle them and are neutral so to
appear even slimly abrasive that they get offended. They want their
mommy to kiss their boo boo. I, and others, don't kiss ass here.
They're getting FREE help from unpaid volunteers from a worldwide
community which means they will experience a wide range of persona.


Isn't there a difference between coddling and just being polite? Why
should anyone who is helping be abrasive? That's the antithesis of being
helpful!

If you're providing help just to stoke your own ego and have to lord it
over the ignorant, you might think about what's wrong in your life. Cheers!

Those are very good points. I was always taught that "..there is no
excuse for rudeness.."
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 09:27:21 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2014-03-06 9:47 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

But you were in a paying job where you had to be nice to your paying
customers. I've seen tech folks take some nasty calls from customers
while trying to remain composed. No one has to do that here.

True, but in the long run it's better for your blood pressure. Take a
deep breath, count to ten, and ignore the post that annoyed you. Why
waste energy telling a jerk he's a jerk?


And as far as I'm concerned, the best way to ignore jerks is simply to
killfile them, as I do. That way you waste no energy and there's no
issue with your blood pressure.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 07:56:43 -0600, CRNG
wrote:

[snip]

Those are very good points. I was always taught that "..there is no
excuse for rudeness.."

There is occasionally a good reason for rudeness, but it is
*much* less often than most think.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:25 -0800, Gene Wirchenko
wrote in

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 07:56:43 -0600, CRNG
wrote:

[snip]

Those are very good points. I was always taught that "..there is no
excuse for rudeness.."

There is occasionally a good reason for rudeness, but it is
*much* less often than most think.

I can't think of a good reason. Perhaps a person being rude to you??
But being rude back seems counterproductive.

Regards,
CG
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 3/06/2014, Monty posted:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:50:15 +1100, Monty wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:39:11 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Alek Trishan wrote:

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software

It may not be the user sending out that spam; Avast does it for you
at no charge! following a recent update. It is on my to do list to
kill that signature.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active. http://www.avast.com


If the avast! message does not now appear below this reply, then the
following chain of actions was responsible for its removal:

From the avastUI Settings Active Protection Mail Shield
Settings (wrench iconl) Behavior - General section "Uncheck"
Insert note into clean message (outgoing)

When you said that was on your to-do list, I thought "Why not just do
it!"

Seems like you're a mind reader ;-)

You did good work.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:42:10 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 3/06/2014, Monty posted:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:50:15 +1100, Monty wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:39:11 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Alek Trishan wrote:

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software

It may not be the user sending out that spam; Avast does it for you
at no charge! following a recent update. It is on my to do list to
kill that signature.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active. http://www.avast.com


If the avast! message does not now appear below this reply, then the
following chain of actions was responsible for its removal:

From the avastUI Settings Active Protection Mail Shield
Settings (wrench iconl) Behavior - General section "Uncheck"
Insert note into clean message (outgoing)

When you said that was on your to-do list, I thought "Why not just do
it!"

My to-do list is also my escape path when I forget to do something :-)

Seems like you're a mind reader ;-)

You did good work.

Monty wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

If a user is spamming, yes, I'll be abrasive in telling them not to
spam, like adding a signature regarding their choice of anti-virus
software

It may not be the user sending out that spam; Avast does it for you at
no charge! following a recent update. It is on my to do list to kill
that signature.

snipped the deliberate choice to spamify his post
Monty figured out in another post example how to remove the spam block

So your argument is the user is too lazy to bother delving into their
anti-virus software to see if the spam can be turned off, too lazy to
ask in the forums for that software on how to eliminate the spam pseudo
signature, too lazy to even look at their own posts after submission to
see their posts got spammified, and they don't care about being a spam
affiliate for a program? Sorry, laziness is not an excuse. If they've
had the time to post here then they've had time to configure the AV
program.

They're obviously not going to change unless they're told. One or two
times of posting with the spam fake sig is okay but once told they
should no longer be posting with the spam block. Yes, they have a
choice. Configure the AV program to not spam or use a different AV
program. Once told and if they refuse to reconfig or change then
they've chosen to be a spammer and I will treat them as such (by kill
filtering them).

I've helped users that have the spam block in their posts. I give them
solutions or diagnosis but also ask they turn off the spam. After a
couple times of asking them to turn off the spam (while continuing to
help them) and they still refuse to turn it off, I tell them I won't
help them anymore. I don't help spammers.

Awhile back, I subscribed to free Teranews. When I saw they were
spammifying my posts, yep, I had a choice. I stopped using them. I
wasn't going to be their spam affiliate. I told them why I wouldn't use
their service anymore and went somewhere else. Yes, they offered a free
service but the real cost was the spam. Too expensive. After more
complaints from other users, they eventually removed the spam block.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing." Friction (complaints) and boycotting do work. Doing nothing
is guaranteed to cause no change.

When you get bad food or service at a restaurant, you don't tell the
manager about it? If not then how would the manager know? Don't assume
someone knows they flubbed. Do assume that when you mention the flub
that they may retort.

So is it really being "abrasive" to tell a user that their AV program is
spammifying their posts and ask them to configure their AV program to
not include the promo fake signature block? I typically explain that
"---" is not a legitimate signature block delimiter which means all that
spam is in the body of their post; i.e., their posts get spammified. I
also mention they need to configure their AV program to *not* add the
spam block. I am abrasive in saying that until they configure their AV
program to stop spammifying their posts that I will consider their posts
as spam. I ask, I inform, and then I may add some chaff (friction) as
impetus to change.

I have no inclination to be polite to spammers. At best I will be
neutral but then I'm not a robot.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:47:50 -0600, CRNG
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:25 -0800, Gene Wirchenko
wrote in

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 07:56:43 -0600, CRNG
wrote:

[snip]

Those are very good points. I was always taught that "..there is no
excuse for rudeness.."

There is occasionally a good reason for rudeness, but it is
*much* less often than most think.

I can't think of a good reason. Perhaps a person being rude to you??
But being rude back seems counterproductive.

No, not being rude back.

There is an old story of a new teacher having trouble with a
class. The principal came into a semi-riot and slammed down a ruler
very close to one of the troublemakers. Instant quiet. The teacher
stammered, "But the book says to treat them gently." Replied the
principal, "Yes, but first, you have to get their attention."

Similar situation.

Sometimes, you have to put a head on a pike. Do not be eager to
do so, but do not shy from it if it is necessary.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko