[OT] Netiquette (was: Re: asm-mode patch to allow per-file comment character setting from file locals)

[Alastair Houghton <alastair@alastairs-place.net>]

On 13 Jun 2006, at 18:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Do we agree now that the information you were looking for is in the
> docs?  If you think something in these texts is unclear or missing,
> please tell what that is, thanks.

There was never any dispute that the information was in the  
documentation.  Nor was there ever any dispute that the reason I  
didn't know about it was that I hadn't read it carefully enough.

> I think you should assume a possible misunderstanding, before you
> actually decide that a remark that sounds cheeky to you is indeed
> cheeky. Please don't forget that for most of the people here
> (including David and myself) English is not their first language.
> Fine nuances of English are not always clear to us.

If you read my original reply to David Kastrup, or the more recent  
reply to Thien-Thi Nguyen, you will find that I am well aware that it  
may not have been intentional.  I do have a sneaking suspicion that  
it *was* how it was intended to come across though (as I'm well aware  
that it's frustrating that people don't read documentation); but even  
if it wasn't, it would only have taken a second for David to reply  
that he hadn't meant it that way and that he was sorry if that was  
how I'd taken it.

> And you are not the only one who gives their time for free.

I'm well aware of that, and I'm equally well aware that there are  
others who donate much more of their spare time than I do.

> All the rest of us, including, but not limited to, those with gnu.org
> addresses, are also volunteers, answering questions and helping
> maintain Emacs on their own free time.  So the politeness and good
> manners are equally reasonably expected on both sides.

If you can find an instance where I haven't been polite, then I will  
happily apologise for it.

>> If it was not a gnu.org address, that's different because you don't
>> have any control over them and they don't represent the FSF.
>
> People with gnu.org address don't represent the FSF in any way, they
> just happen to have accounts on gnu.org machines because they do work
> for the GNU project.

People with gnu.org addresses represent the FSF every time they use  
that address, in the same sense that people wearing a uniform  
represent the organisation to which the uniform belongs.  That  
doesn't mean that they *speak for* the FSF, of course, in the same  
way that most individual members of (say) the Salvation Army do not  
speak for *their* organisation.  The fact remains, though, that they  
do *represent* that organisation to the wider world.

Anyway, to be clear, I'm really not interested in debating this, and  
I'm certain it's off-topic for the list as well.  All I wanted to do  
was submit my patch.  If you have a technical problem with it, then  
by all means comment (though please look at the most recent version,  
rather than the one in the first message in this thread).

Kind regards,

Alastair.

--
http://www.alastairs-place.net