new style class

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:14:44 +0000, Bruce Coram wrote:

>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>   
> Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem
> to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge
> themselves at the expense of others.  While it is undoubtedly true that
> there are people who post who should spend more time reading and
> researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that  are rude,
> hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance.

Pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is neither rude, hostile or 
arrogant. It may be brusque. It may fail to sugar-coat the message 
sufficiently, and hurt some recipient's feelings, but that's their 
problem, not that of the sender.


> Eric
> Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid
> providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or
> both.

Why don't you do so yourself? He solicits suggestions and revisions.

Or ask for permission to fork the document and come up with your own. 
(You have to ask first, because as far as I can see the document is not 
released with an open licence.)


> If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an
> intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or
> enjoys being rude.  

Dare I suggest that perhaps YOU should read smart-questions? In 
particular, the bits where Raymond writes about RTFM:

"You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent 
is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You 
should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness."

Pointing somebody at smart-questions is a rather more polite form of RTFM.


> The best response to those who can not be bothered
> to do the necessary work is either no reply 

Ignoring people's request for help to punish them for poor behaviour is 
not only rude but it is counter-productive. Not only do you not solve 
their immediate problem, but you keep them in a state of ignorance as to 
why they are being shunned -- thus guaranteeing that they will invariably 
transgress again.


> or a simple "You would be
> well advised to do some research before asking your question."

Again leaving them no better off and still likely to transgress in the 
future. How much is "some"? What sort of research? Asking on Usenet is 
research isn't it? Why should I be expected to struggle with this on my 
own when there are people out there who already know the answer?

These are all reasonable thoughts that a poster might have. Then there 
are the unreasonable thoughts, like the poster who once told me off for 
asking for a traceback so we could see what his error was. He actually 
took the time to write to me to abuse me for wasting *his* time, when I 
could "just as easily" copy the code from his post, fix the broken 
indentation and typos, save it to a file and run it myself.

How do you expect people to learn better if we follow your advice?


> We do not need to make life any more difficult than it already is.

Following your advise will make life worse.

> Civility costs nothing.

Teaching people to ask appropriate questions is being civil.

> Eric Raymond's article, which offer's good advice, is
> rather misguided in not only providing an excuse for poor behaviour but
> almost actively encouraging it.  This is a pity since the essence of the
> document is very good advice.

Shame you haven't understood it, because your suggestions are 
diametrically opposed to his message. Raymond's message is about teaching 
people how to learn for themselves. Your message is to ignore their 
request for help and let them keep floundering in the dark.



-- 
Steven.