Cookie fucking problem

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 28-10-13 15:38, Chris Angelico schreef:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2013-10-28, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris is not baiting Nikos, he is giving him useful information that
>>> unfortunately Nikos doesn't want to hear.
>>
>> So he's replying to Nikos with responses that aren't helping Nikos and
>> just encourage more posts from Nikos.  I'm sure the _intent_ is
>> different than Mark's, but unfortunately, the result is identical.
> 
> I still maintain that I'm not *baiting* him, though.

I don't care. Maybe you can find some semantical rule, that will
give your behaviour an other etiket than "baiting", in the end
the effect on the list is the same, with Nikos feeling entitled
to insist to get an answer.

And if we want this to be a welcoming community, then we have to
care about the effects and not about the semantical category. So
should you want this to be a welcoming community, then you are
focussing on the wrong point.

> Maybe it would be
> better overall if I never even try to help him, but sometimes I just
> get all paladiny... it feels wrong to *not* answer.

What do you mean it feels wrong not to answer? Do you participate in
every subject? Do you engage at least everybody? Do you answer every
question that went unanswered? As far as I can see the answer is no
to each of these questions, so how come it feels wrong to not answer
Nikos?

-- 
Antoon Pardon