if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave

David wrote:
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave


Probably...

Just look at it is a public service (or disservice if you give the wrong
answer.) LOL

It would be nice though.

We all forget our manners sometimes -- usenet seems to me to be like
driving an American freeway through a city. Fine till you make a mistake
-- then...

Now that you mention it I will take extra care -- I promise. :-)


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"David" wrote in message
news
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the right
time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or ask
more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?

Dave

Gee, David, it would be nice all right but there are a few of us who do not
devote as much time to reading NGs as we do to woodworking.
I frequently find that I have not used my computer for 3 - 4 days at a time.
But I still appreciate most of the info I get from this group.

Thanks for your comments anyway,

Max D.

True.

I am guilty of that. However, some times it takes me days or more to get an
opportunity to try out proposed solutions and then it seems kind of moot.
I'm not sure how others read, but I only follow threads for a day or two,
unless I flag them. Even then it's generally only for a week.

I resolve to do better.

_Steve




"David" wrote in message
news
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Can I get back to you on that Friday? :-)

Lee

Sure! I'll be right here... g

Dave

Lee DeRaud wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:


if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?


Can I get back to you on that Friday? :-)

Lee

David,

I agree and having been involved with this group for a few years - seldom do
I answer (or ask) questions anymore that take more than a few lines for the
newbie's in the group. If I know the name as a long time contributor and I
have something to say that may be helpful - then I'll take the time.

I've found that people have forgotten their manners and saying "Thanks"
doesn't cross their mind. As you've read already - they won't make the time
but yet they have time to ask the question... How long does it take -
perhaps a few seconds? It took one individual that replied, longer to
explain why he doesn't. Brilliant...

Unfortunately, many others appear to have the same attitude. I know some
individuals that used to write detailed explanations, maintain excellent web
sites and help others do some research to help solve a problem and even send
things to others free of charge - only to get dumped on later, or never get
a "Thanks" for their efforts. If more people did, then perhaps others would
be more willing to offer help.

As you noted... common decency doesn't live here anymore it seems and
neither do those that used to be the masters of woodworking mentoring.

Bob S.


"David" wrote in message
news
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the right
time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or ask
more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave

In article ,
"BobS" wrote:

As you noted... common decency doesn't live here anymore it seems and
neither do those that used to be the masters of woodworking mentoring.

That is nice to know you feel that way... but I think you are being
unfair. Unfair to many. How can you paint with a brush as wide as that?
I wasn't around when those 'masters' were here but I have some very
decent exchanges with some pretty knowledgeable guys.
I have received a lot of good advice, in many cases I didn't ask the
questions, but good thoughts came out anyway. There is still some pretty
good mentoring going on here. *I* think there are still some 'masters'
here.

And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.

Robotoy......;-)

And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.

If you read the thread, my comment had nothing to do with you - since you
did not post a comment up to that point. But if you think it's now a fact
that you have no common decency - no argument from me.

And I'm glad to know that you now know everything about me.
Sheeeessshhhh... even after 38 years of marriage, the love of my life can't
even say that...

Bob S.

In article ,
"BobS" wrote:

Robotoy......;-)

And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.

If you read the thread, my comment had nothing to do with you - since you
did not post a comment up to that point. But if you think it's now a fact
that you have no common decency - no argument from me.

And I'm glad to know that you now know everything about me.
Sheeeessshhhh... even after 38 years of marriage, the love of my life can't
even say that...

Bob S.

as long as I have no common decency... go **** yourself, sir.

plonk

Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
"BobS" wrote:


Robotoy......;-)


And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.

If you read the thread, my comment had nothing to do with you - since you
did not post a comment up to that point. But if you think it's now a fact
that you have no common decency - no argument from me.

And I'm glad to know that you now know everything about me.
Sheeeessshhhh... even after 38 years of marriage, the love of my life can't
even say that...

Bob S.


as long as I have no common decency... go **** yourself, sir.

plonk

Rob:

Did you eat rusty nails for breakfast this morning? ROTFLMAO

This is not like you.

Turn on CBC and think gentle thoughts for a while.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

You're a real gem "Robotoy", now pick up your little wooden blocks and go
home.

You have proven beyond a doubt that common decency is something you know
nothing about at all.

Bob S.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

plonk

BobS wrote:
Robotoy......;-)


And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.


If you read the thread, my comment had nothing to do with you - since you
did not post a comment up to that point. But if you think it's now a fact
that you have no common decency - no argument from me.

And I'm glad to know that you now know everything about me.
Sheeeessshhhh... even after 38 years of marriage, the love of my life can't
even say that...

Bob S.


Bob:

I checked -- I think you made a blanket statement that some people might
take offense to -- I won't speculate on whether or not you are right or
wrong. People have helped me, and I can't give as much as I would like.
Many people here are very decent and I hope it stays that way.

Perhaps your comment came out the wrong way, perhaps you meant it. It
won't change my mind.

If you meant what you said say nothing and let me believe that you
missed my post -- I would prefer that to the the alternative.

You seem to be one of the courteous helpful folk -- not that my opinion
would hold much sway.

Cheers!


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

BobS wrote:
Robotoy......;-)


And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.


If you read the thread, my comment had nothing to do with you - since you
did not post a comment up to that point. But if you think it's now a fact
that you have no common decency - no argument from me.

And I'm glad to know that you now know everything about me.
Sheeeessshhhh... even after 38 years of marriage, the love of my life can't
even say that...

Bob S.





Meaning that I have none cause I did?

Be gentle Bob. I hope it's not what you mean. But if it is -- you're
welcome to your opinion. I will try to improve.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:19:41 -0400, Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"BobS" wrote:

As you noted... common decency doesn't live here anymore it seems and
neither do those that used to be the masters of woodworking mentoring.

That is nice to know you feel that way... but I think you are being
unfair. Unfair to many. How can you paint with a brush as wide as that?
I wasn't around when those 'masters' were here but I have some very
decent exchanges with some pretty knowledgeable guys.
I have received a lot of good advice, in many cases I didn't ask the
questions, but good thoughts came out anyway. There is still some pretty
good mentoring going on here. *I* think there are still some 'masters'
here.

And now that YOU have established that I have no common decency, you
have demonstrated that you know nothing about me. But I did learn all
about you.

I'm a newbie to the group.. maybe 6 or 8 months...
I've gotten a lot of GREAT advise from folks of all skill levels...

Mentors?? I guess I only have about 20 sites book marked so far...
I use folks sites like we used to use a library.. (remember libraries?)
I've never asked a question by email that anyone has ignored or flamed..
just replies with answers to questions, advice, engorgement and tips.. I'd call
them mentors.. especially most of the folks on the list below, that never lose
patience with people asking the same questions over and over...
Part of my wood webucation:

http://aroundthewoods.com/
http://www.e-woodshop.net/
http://www.winterburn.net/doug/
http://tomstudwell.com/allprojects.htm
http://www.billpounds.com/woodshop/
http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com/
http://home.earthlink.net/~kvaughn65j/index.html
http://home.mchsi.com/~lawlhote/
http://woodworking.homeip.net/wood/
http://www.joewoodworker.com/
http://www.patwarner.com/
http://www.knight-toolworks.com/
http://personalpages.tds.net/~upgeorge/index.html
http://www.enter.net/~ultradad/index.html
http://www.beaverpondstudio.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/index.html
http://www.the-wildings.com/shop/



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"BobS" wrote in message

I've found that people have forgotten their manners and saying "Thanks"
doesn't cross their mind. As you've read already - they won't make the
time
but yet they have time to ask the question... How long does it take -
perhaps a few seconds? It took one individual that replied, longer to
explain why he doesn't. Brilliant...

What most of the responders seem to be missing is a bit of perspective on
this issue. Not ragging anyone, but there was a very good reason at one
time:

Back in the "old days' of the Internet, and the BBS's and FidoNet before
that, it was considered very bad manners to waste bandwidth by individually
thanking those who responded ... thus the "TIA" at the end of many OP
questions in those days.

Manners are dictated by the culture, and to NOT say "thank you" was the
culture, and accepted good manners, of the computer savvy before many who
expect to be thanked today could spell "computer".

But times do change ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/17/05

Swingman wrote:
Back in the "old days' of the Internet, and the BBS's and FidoNet before
that, it was considered very bad manners to waste bandwidth by individually
thanking those who responded ... thus the "TIA" at the end of many OP
questions in those days.

Yet, so many (but not all by any means) of those who used TIA felt free
to waste endless bandwidth flaming people and arguing. They very much
often felt it ok to take issue with the answers, but not to offer
thanks, even aggregated.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
news
Swingman wrote:
Back in the "old days' of the Internet, and the BBS's and FidoNet before
that, it was considered very bad manners to waste bandwidth by
individually
thanking those who responded ... thus the "TIA" at the end of many OP
questions in those days.

Yet, so many (but not all by any means) of those who used TIA felt free
to waste endless bandwidth flaming people and arguing. They very much
often felt it ok to take issue with the answers, but not to offer
thanks, even aggregated.

Some of those flamefests and arguments were, and can still be, entertaining
.... hitting the next key on 37 individual "thank you" posts, never.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/17/05

Can I infer from your words, that it is NOW acceptable to you for one to
post his/her thanks without being thought of as a bandwidth hog?
Wouldn't it be a sad commentary on today's culture that a "thank you"
would be perceived as rude?

(I'm one of those who still can't figure out why threads with obviously
non-woodworking subject titles still receive angry posts [as has this
thread] from those who feel it's their duty to complain that "OT" was
not added to the title. If the subject says something like "Hey, how
about those Mets?", why would anyone who gets irritated at OT subjects
waste their oh-so valuable time to read AND respond? It seems their
objection is to time wasting, yet they take the time to bang out a rude
interjection. That's counter-intuitive to me.)

Dave

Swingman wrote:

"BobS" wrote in message


I've found that people have forgotten their manners and saying "Thanks"
doesn't cross their mind. As you've read already - they won't make the

time

but yet they have time to ask the question... How long does it take -
perhaps a few seconds? It took one individual that replied, longer to
explain why he doesn't. Brilliant...


What most of the responders seem to be missing is a bit of perspective on
this issue. Not ragging anyone, but there was a very good reason at one
time:

Back in the "old days' of the Internet, and the BBS's and FidoNet before
that, it was considered very bad manners to waste bandwidth by individually
thanking those who responded ... thus the "TIA" at the end of many OP
questions in those days.

Manners are dictated by the culture, and to NOT say "thank you" was the
culture, and accepted good manners, of the computer savvy before many who
expect to be thanked today could spell "computer".

But times do change ...

David wrote:
Can I infer from your words, that it is NOW acceptable to you for one to
post his/her thanks without being thought of as a bandwidth hog?

That's how I read it.

Wouldn't it be a sad commentary on today's culture that a "thank you"
would be perceived as rude?

I think he said that times change. :-)

(I'm one of those who still can't figure out why threads with obviously
non-woodworking subject titles still receive angry posts [as has this
thread] from those who feel it's their duty to complain that "OT" was
not added to the title. If the subject says something like "Hey, how
about those Mets?", why would anyone who gets irritated at OT subjects
waste their oh-so valuable time to read AND respond? It seems their
objection is to time wasting, yet they take the time to bang out a rude
interjection. That's counter-intuitive to me.)


Not too many. Kind of enjoyed the thread. Learned some more.

Dave

Swingman wrote:

"BobS" wrote in message


I've found that people have forgotten their manners and saying "Thanks"
doesn't cross their mind. As you've read already - they won't make the


time

but yet they have time to ask the question... How long does it take -
perhaps a few seconds? It took one individual that replied, longer to
explain why he doesn't. Brilliant...



What most of the responders seem to be missing is a bit of perspective on
this issue. Not ragging anyone, but there was a very good reason at one
time:

Back in the "old days' of the Internet, and the BBS's and FidoNet before
that, it was considered very bad manners to waste bandwidth by
individually
thanking those who responded ... thus the "TIA" at the end of many OP
questions in those days.

Manners are dictated by the culture, and to NOT say "thank you" was the
culture, and accepted good manners, of the computer savvy before many who
expect to be thanked today could spell "computer".

But times do change ...



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"David" wrote in message

Can I infer from your words, that it is NOW acceptable to you for one to
post his/her thanks without being thought of as a bandwidth hog?
Wouldn't it be a sad commentary on today's culture that a "thank you"
would be perceived as rude?

Don't infer anything, except that Bob Dylan was right.

(I'm one of those who still can't figure out why threads with obviously
non-woodworking subject titles still receive angry posts [as has this
thread] from those who feel it's their duty to complain that "OT" was
not added to the title. If the subject says something like "Hey, how
about those Mets?", why would anyone who gets irritated at OT subjects
waste their oh-so valuable time to read AND respond? It seems their
objection is to time wasting, yet they take the time to bang out a rude
interjection. That's counter-intuitive to me.)

Can't argue with you there.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/17/05

In article ,
says...
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?


In the early days of usenet and its predecessors, such posting was
considered a waste of bandwidth. If someone posted thanks, especially
to each and every responder, he would get flamed.

I still occasionally see a question with "TIA" or "Thanks in advance" in
it. I've even used it myself.

I'm not saying that explains it all, or even most. But it is a reason
that you might not be aware of.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?


In the early days of usenet and its predecessors, such posting was
considered a waste of bandwidth. If someone posted thanks, especially
to each and every responder, he would get flamed.

I still occasionally see a question with "TIA" or "Thanks in advance" in
it. I've even used it myself.

I'm not saying that explains it all, or even most. But it is a reason
that you might not be aware of.


This is the way I look at it. When I get several good responses I might
respond to one or two for clarification, but the rest I will tend to send a
"thank you" to everybody in one post. I assume each person sees it even
though it is posted under just one person's response. I don't know of any
other way to thank people without spamming the group. I just posted a
question on using 0000 on poly. I really don't think everybody wants to see
all my thank you's.

dwhite

David wrote:
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Do you think a post would last 24 hours without going off topic? :-)

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

I felt guilty for forgetting to put "OT:" in the subject title!

Dave

no(SPAM)vasys wrote:

David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel
they were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks"
or ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?


Do you think a post would last 24 hours without going off topic? :-)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave

I think most folks do respond, even if it's just a "thanks"..

As to how long?
I check the wRECk once or twice a day when I'm in town, but I have friends that
check newsgroups once a week or so, whether they need to or not.. same with
email..

Hell, last thursday night, I sent my kid in WA. an email to let him know that we
were leaving home Thursday night instead of Friday afternoon.. We got to his
house Friday afternoon and he hadn't checked his email in 3 or 4 days.. lol



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

I agree that we all don't check in here with the same frequency. OTOH,
if I asked a question, I'd certainly check back soon to read the
answer(s). Otherwise, it couldn't have been too important. When I
answer someone's question, I'm under the impression that they really
wanted someone's opinion or ideas to help them with a project or make a
purchase. Like I said before, Mac, maybe I AM expecting too much!

When we converse, the listener makes "uh huh" noises from time to time,
to show they are paying attention. It's impossible to know when someone
is reading here, unless they post a reply.



Dave

mac davis wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:


if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave


I think most folks do respond, even if it's just a "thanks"..

As to how long?
I check the wRECk once or twice a day when I'm in town, but I have friends that
check newsgroups once a week or so, whether they need to or not.. same with
email..

Hell, last thursday night, I sent my kid in WA. an email to let him know that we
were leaving home Thursday night instead of Friday afternoon.. We got to his
house Friday afternoon and he hadn't checked his email in 3 or 4 days.. lol



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:30:59 -0700, David wrote:

I agree that we all don't check in here with the same frequency. OTOH,
if I asked a question, I'd certainly check back soon to read the
answer(s). Otherwise, it couldn't have been too important. When I
answer someone's question, I'm under the impression that they really
wanted someone's opinion or ideas to help them with a project or make a
purchase. Like I said before, Mac, maybe I AM expecting too much!

When we converse, the listener makes "uh huh" noises from time to time,
to show they are paying attention. It's impossible to know when someone
is reading here, unless they post a reply.



Dave
yeah, Dave... but sometimes instead of "uh huh", they nod their head.. *g*



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Nodding is ok as long as they don't nod off. I hope I don't put anyone
to sleep. g

Dave

mac davis wrote:


yeah, Dave... but sometimes instead of "uh huh", they nod their head.. *g*



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

I don't know...give me a coupla days to think about it.

bill


"David" wrote in message
news
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the right
time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or ask
more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:05:49 -0400, "Bill Otten"
wrote:

ok.. have your people call my people, Bill.. we'll do lunch...

I don't know...give me a coupla days to think about it.

bill


"David" wrote in message
news
if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the right
time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or ask
more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


Dave




mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?

Well you'd expect some response from them eventually, and I see there
was one now in the thread that apparently motivated this comment. I'd
rather see them try to answer someone else's question in return if
there isn't really anything more to be said. I try to do that when I
ask something.

It goes the other way too though, it kind of sucks when you post
something and only one person bothers to reply, or no one at all.
Someone posted a pretty cool on topic link and just got two people
bitching at him for posting it wrong. A while back I posted about
finishing my bench and got one response, and no answer to the question
I asked about it. Sometimes that happens though, you can't get too
worked up about it.


-Leuf

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:25:11 -0400, Leuf wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?

Well you'd expect some response from them eventually, and I see there
was one now in the thread that apparently motivated this comment. I'd
rather see them try to answer someone else's question in return if
there isn't really anything more to be said. I try to do that when I
ask something.

It goes the other way too though, it kind of sucks when you post
something and only one person bothers to reply, or no one at all.
Someone posted a pretty cool on topic link and just got two people
bitching at him for posting it wrong. A while back I posted about
finishing my bench and got one response, and no answer to the question
I asked about it. Sometimes that happens though, you can't get too
worked up about it.


-Leuf

leuf.. I try to remember that they get what they pay for here.. and my answer
might be the wrong one!

But, like many things in life, several poor experiences are more than offset by
the occasional one like:
"Leuf, thanks for that great tip.. it made my project so much easier and nicer!



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article , David
wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Or if people took the time to label OT posts with "OT" in the subject
line?

Yeah, that would be nice... In fact, the phrase "common decency"
springs to mind for some reason.

djb

--
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:18:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , David
wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Or if people took the time to label OT posts with "OT" in the subject
line?

Yeah, that would be nice... In fact, the phrase "common decency"
springs to mind for some reason.

djb
or common courtesy?



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

David:
Or am I expecting too much?


Knowing what I know now, yes.

By the way, get back to me on this as soon as possible.

Unisaw A-100

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:59:49 -0700, David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?

You're probably expecting too much. FWIW, I try to follow up any
thread that I originate or post in at all, but it's the busy season at
work right now, and sometimes I put in 14 hour days. When that
happens, it's kind of hard to remember to follow every damn thing I
ever looked at on Usenet. Common courtesy is great, but don't get too
hung up on it if someone doesn't gush over a one line "Do A Google
Search" reply. It could be that they've got a sick kid at home, or an
eighty-hour workweek, or even got abducted by little green men. Hell,
anything could have happened. Maybe they already found the answer,
and they're busy working on that rush project they posted about.

The only way to keep the group healthy is to share what you can when
you can, and let the little **** roll off you. It's nice to get
validation for your response, sure- but if you don't, why loose any
sleep over it? Look at it this way- it's going into the archives, and
you could helping someone a dozen years from now, and maybe *they* are
going to be up to whatever standards you expect from a usenet citizen.
Lots of folks are lurkers- you're helping them too, even though
they're too shy to jump right in and speak.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

The only way to keep the group healthy is to share what you can when
you can, and let the little **** roll off you. It's nice to get
validation for your response, sure- but if you don't, why loose any
sleep over it?

Amen!

It is even more important to keep contributing than to offer validation.
Contributions offfer something to everyone (lurkers and posters alike), the
latter is really only useful for one person and is chaf for the rest.

(And yes, I realize that this post is arguably in the later category)

-steve

David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?

With all due respect for your sensibilities and your wishes for a "kinder,
gentler" world, has it occurred to you that the information/advice you may
have given might not be what a poster was looking for. I don't always feel
motivated to thank someone for what might be, to me, worthless advice. Good
intentions aside.
Another thought comes to mind; have you considered getting a dog. If you
keep some dog biscuits in your pocket the dog will give you almost undivided
attention which seems to be what you're looking for. Another poster
suggested that you "lighten up". Don't take it personally. Advice offered
with good intentions of course.

Max D. These golden words of wisdom are offered freely and without any
expectation of recompense or gratitude.

Thank you. I have a dog already. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dave

Max wrote:
David wrote:

if OP's interacted with the responders to their threads, within a
reasonable time frame, so that those who took the time to answer their
question(s)(or posted an opinion that was requested) wouldn't feel they
were wasting their time?

Seems to me that's just common decency. Wouldn't a day be about the
right time frame to expect the OP to post either his general "thanks" or
ask more questions, or debate some issues raised by the responders?

Or am I expecting too much?


With all due respect for your sensibilities and your wishes for a "kinder,
gentler" world, has it occurred to you that the information/advice you may
have given might not be what a poster was looking for. I don't always feel
motivated to thank someone for what might be, to me, worthless advice. Good
intentions aside.
Another thought comes to mind; have you considered getting a dog. If you
keep some dog biscuits in your pocket the dog will give you almost undivided
attention which seems to be what you're looking for. Another poster
suggested that you "lighten up". Don't take it personally. Advice offered
with good intentions of course.

Max D. These golden words of wisdom are offered freely and without any
expectation of recompense or gratitude.