Subject:
|
Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 04:32:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
468 times
|
| |
![Post a public reply to this message](/news/icon-reply.gif) | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Your tone suggests, contrary to your words, that you'd appreciate an
> acknowledgement of your effort. And I don't think that's out of line, but
> I'm also not sure what our common understanding of this issue is (if there is >one).
Nope, I am not the slightest interested in acknowledgement of the effort at
all, not unless it leads to interesting discussions. That would be cool.
FWIW, it has also been my understanding that there is no real standard of
behavior as to giving others "the nod." Some might think it's polite;
others may think it's noise.
> I think a short thanks to LUGNET would have been noise.
There ya go...
Occasionally someone posts a MOC, receives praise for it, and then goes down
the list of responses with 'thank you's -- ugh! I have no real beef with
that, but what are they thinking? Nobody wants to see all those brief
replies. Okay, minor beef...
> I'd think that being offended would do you no good. So to the extent that
> you can actually control those feelings, skip it.
Exactly as I feel about it. I just wanted to make sure I was not alone in
being somewhat thick-skinned in this respect.
Just for the record, I REALLY was asking about this in the abstract as a
hypothetical question on netiquette. I should have realized that because my
question was based on a real example it would not be accepted as a purely
hypothetical question. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I think
Christopher was being rude or impolite when I actually think nothing of the
kind.
I really appreciate everyone's responses. I think some of you have been on
the internet a lot longer than others of us and in many different contexts
-- and, in the main, I was seeking some confirmation that a somewhat
"laissez faire" ettiquette standard was the norm online (if that's clear at
all).
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread: ![real conspiracies? -Christopher L. Weeks (30-Jun-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: real conspiracies? -Richard Marchetti (30-Jun-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?) -Christopher L. Weeks (30-Jun-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?) -Richard Marchetti (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Richard Marchetti (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Larry Pieniazek (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/268.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Christopher L. Weeks (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![You are here](/news/here.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/268.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -David Eaton (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Richard Marchetti (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Christopher L. Weeks (2-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Maggie Cambron (1-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. ) -Richard Marchetti (2-Jul-02 to lugnet.off-topic.debate)](/news/x.gif)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|