Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:38:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vht0ed$nik$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vhrmk1$1ivhr$1@dont-email.me> <vhsnff$pk5$1@reader2.panix.com> <vhsrvb$1oct2$4@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:38:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="24148"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 4410
Lines: 75

This is amazing.  Yet another response that was both emailed to
me _and_ posted to USENET.

In article <vhsrvb$1oct2$4@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>[snip]

I'm not particularly interested in the technical conent of your
article, which seems like it's trying to force a pedantic point
of interpretation without regard to the current standard (which
you admitted you didn't have a copy of) so I'm not going to
respond to that.  Now you've admitted that your issue is that
someone _could_ misinterpret my statement.  Ok, but this is
comp.unix.programmer, not comp.lang.c.

But I am interested in this repeated mistake of emailing and
then posting.

In another email sent to me, but curiously NOT posted to USENET,
you said that you were "trying your best" and that if your best
was not good enough, I should take steps on my end to discard
your emails.  No.  It's not my responsibility to deal with your
mistakes.

I find this troubling.  I really don't care how long you've been
programming, whether or not APL was your third language 50 years
ago (appeal to length of experience is, of course, a logical
fallacy) or how long you used the prior version of your tool.
Three and a half years is a long time to learn your way around a
new user interface; excuses related to age and prior experience
just don't cut it.  As a former Drill Instructor once told me on
Parris Island, "excuses are like assholes: everybody has one."

It's the height of arrogance to assume that your words are so
important that it's someone else's responsibility to account for
the fact that you care to post them correctly.  How about,
instead of excuses and asking others to deal with your mistakes,
you take some personal responsibility for using your tools
competently?  Sure, mistakes _do_ happen, but with you it seems
to happen more often than not.  If you're the one continually
making the mistake, you ought to be owning that, not asking
others to take steps to deal with your failures in this regard.

Here are some ideas for you to consider:

1. If you email someone something you intended to post, why not
   follow up?  You could, for example, send a follow-up email
   ("oops, I accidentally sent that via email; sorry about that,
   I'll post it instead").
2. Alternatively, you could acknowledge that in your USENET post
   with a disclaimer ("this was accidentally mailed to the
   respondee").
3. If you email someone when you intended to post, you could
   exercise some discipline and simply not post, acknowledging
   the mistake while assuming responsibility for it.  Perhaps
   that would encourage you to learn to use your tools
   correctly.
4. If you cannot use your existing newsreader without making
   this mistake so frequently, perhaps consider switching to
   different software for your USENET consumption; maybe a
   program that more accurately tracks your desired user
   interface?
5. Perhaps make yourself a checklist of things to check before
   responding; #1 on that might be, "am I sending this by email
   or posting?  Is that really what I want to do?"

I'm sure you can think of others.

And while you clearly have the ability to post whatever you like
to USENET, it is a choice to do so, and it sure seems you lack
the discipline and discretion to do so competently.  Perhaps
consider stopping until you develop or refine the necessary
skills to do so without such frequent error.

	- Dan C.