Cross-Talk

Hi,

I've been monitoring this newsgroup for a little while
now, and overall, the information that is presented here I
find to be very helpful and interesting.

For the most part...there is one exception. While
this "is" a microsoft newsgroup, meant to deal with issues
of microsoft broadband hardware, I see many posts from
folks who use other brands of hardware. Personally, I find
other folks discussing similar problems with other
manufacturer hardware interesting.

Each has their own particular capabilities, configurations
and nuances, and some are general and applicable across
platforms, regardless of vendor. Some aren't. While we may
not be able to address specific issues or solve specific
problems for the non-microsoft h/w owners, I still find
their posts insightful with regard to the bigger picture -
networking.

There is something else that I find insightful however,
but not in an interesting way - the exception mentioned
above. The "little boy who wants to be king" attitude in
some of the responses to our non-microsoft bretheren
leaves a particularly sour taste. How many of the non-MS
folk have steered away from this newsgroup thinking that
we're just a bunch of haughty, egotistical <insert bad
word here> based on a snide response like the following,
and I quote,

"Well lets look at the name of the newsgroup. It starts
with "microsoft" so that must mean we only talk about
microsoft products. Next it says "public" so that means
any person can post here. Then it says "broadbandnet" so
since this is a Microsoft newsgroup it must be talking
about the Microsoft Broadband Networking. Last but not
least it says "hardware" So that must mean it is the
Microsoft hardware for networking that we talk about.

Thus this is not a general networking newsgroup, but one
for the Microsoft Broadband networking hardware. I'd
suggest either posting in a newsgroup for the hardware you
are running, a general networking newsgroup, or one for
whatever version of Windows you are running."

While the author of the above occasionally has some
insight into MS networking, I find their overall immature,
self-inflated ego more of a repellant than the information
they have to offer a value.

I'm not suggesting that they stop responding to posts or
providing assistance if they have information which can
help a user. What I do suggest is that a negative reply,
meaning no reply, speaks just as clearly that a post is
irrelevant in this forum, or that no one here has a useful
suggestion, as the above quote - and a negative reply
won't leave anyone with ill feelings.

Hopefully this will be received in the manner it was
intended. Thanks for your time and patience,

Dan

Well said, Dan ... thoughtful, well-written, and (I hope) the view of
the vast majority of people who scan this particular newsgroup for help
and advice.
--
Regards, Fred

Dan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been monitoring this newsgroup for a little while
> now, and overall, the information that is presented here I
> find to be very helpful and interesting.
>
> For the most part...there is one exception. While
> this "is" a microsoft newsgroup, meant to deal with issues
> of microsoft broadband hardware, I see many posts from
> folks who use other brands of hardware. Personally, I find
> other folks discussing similar problems with other
> manufacturer hardware interesting.
>
> Each has their own particular capabilities, configurations
> and nuances, and some are general and applicable across
> platforms, regardless of vendor. Some aren't. While we may
> not be able to address specific issues or solve specific
> problems for the non-microsoft h/w owners, I still find
> their posts insightful with regard to the bigger picture -
> networking.
>
> There is something else that I find insightful however,
> but not in an interesting way - the exception mentioned
> above. The "little boy who wants to be king" attitude in
> some of the responses to our non-microsoft bretheren
> leaves a particularly sour taste. How many of the non-MS
> folk have steered away from this newsgroup thinking that
> we're just a bunch of haughty, egotistical <insert bad
> word here> based on a snide response like the following,
> and I quote,
>
> "Well lets look at the name of the newsgroup. It starts
> with "microsoft" so that must mean we only talk about
> microsoft products. Next it says "public" so that means
> any person can post here. Then it says "broadbandnet" so
> since this is a Microsoft newsgroup it must be talking
> about the Microsoft Broadband Networking. Last but not
> least it says "hardware" So that must mean it is the
> Microsoft hardware for networking that we talk about.
>
> Thus this is not a general networking newsgroup, but one
> for the Microsoft Broadband networking hardware. I'd
> suggest either posting in a newsgroup for the hardware you
> are running, a general networking newsgroup, or one for
> whatever version of Windows you are running."
>
> While the author of the above occasionally has some
> insight into MS networking, I find their overall immature,
> self-inflated ego more of a repellant than the information
> they have to offer a value.
>
> I'm not suggesting that they stop responding to posts or
> providing assistance if they have information which can
> help a user. What I do suggest is that a negative reply,
> meaning no reply, speaks just as clearly that a post is
> irrelevant in this forum, or that no one here has a useful
> suggestion, as the above quote - and a negative reply
> won't leave anyone with ill feelings.
>
> Hopefully this will be received in the manner it was
> intended. Thanks for your time and patience,
>
> Dan

"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:08d901c4b995$73966bc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> There is something else that I find insightful however,
> but not in an interesting way - the exception mentioned
> above. The "little boy who wants to be king" attitude in
> some of the responses to our non-microsoft bretheren
> leaves a particularly sour taste. How many of the non-MS
> folk have steered away from this newsgroup thinking that
> we're just a bunch of haughty, egotistical <insert bad
> word here> based on a snide response like the following,
> and I quote,

While your argument may seem compelling to you, you need to understand that
there is a reason why usenet works this way. The main reason why most users
resist off-topic posts is that they tend to decrease the signal/noise ratio
of the newsgroup. What may be interesting and compelling for you, is noise
to the person who needs information on a particular topic. What ends up
happening is that the informative posts on a particular topic are drowned
out by all of the off-topic posts and users who come looking for information
on a particular topic either don't find what they need or have to search
much longer than they should have to.

Every so often a user such as yourself comes along with a way that usenet
could better serve them or some other minority group. It seems reasonable
enough because after all, usenet belongs to all of us and if I want to
participate, I should be able to right? Well, yes and no. Most groups have
over the years "enforced" the rules of no off-topic posts by giving "gentle"
reminders to the off-topic posters and asking them to post elsewhere.

While you're right, some posters do seem to get an extra thrill out of
telling people "where to go", many are just trying to be helpful. Usenet is
not the forum for those with fragile egos. Many of the "good" responses are
written by professionals with little time to take into consideration the way
an abrupt post may be percieved by other posters. Get over it and move on
is usually the best advice I can give to a "newbie".

Lastly, if you look at the rules of conduct for using the MS server:

"Relevance to Topics: Please make sure that your postings in discussion
groups and chats are relevant to the subject at hand. It is normal for some
topics to drift from the stated subject. However, to ensure maximum benefit
for everyone, we encourage you to keep your postings as close to the subject
as possible."

-Pete

I do appreciate your feedback and point of view Pete.
Maybe I missed my mark a bit. I was basically trying to
get across two things: courtesy and professionalism.

There are numerous examples of these throughout this
newsgroup - a good recent example would be Chris H.'s
response to the "Bandwidth" post from "anon". Barb Bowman
also replies to misdirected posts with
suggestions/directions to a better-suited forum.

While I am not an MVP, MSCE, nor a hardware engineer, I
have worked in large, IT-based customer service
environments supporting users as a liaison between the
programmers and the users, and in addition to being
somewhat saavy with the applications that I was
responsible for, I also had to develop the skill of
tactful redirection. Whether its telling a full-bird
Colonel or the lowly soldier that they're in the wrong
office, there are more respectful, courteous and
professional ways of saying "you're barking up the wrong
tree", "that dog ain't gonna hunt", or "Well lets look at
the name of the newsgroup".

The end user, whether its the Col. or the soldier, or in
our case, the errant post, appreciates the professional
courtesy, as I'm sure we all do.

That, in a nutshell, is all I was driving at.
Thanks again,
Dan


>-----Original Message-----
>
>"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>news:08d901c4b995$73966bc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> There is something else that I find insightful however,
>> but not in an interesting way - the exception mentioned
>> above. The "little boy who wants to be king" attitude in
>> some of the responses to our non-microsoft bretheren
>> leaves a particularly sour taste. How many of the non-MS
>> folk have steered away from this newsgroup thinking that
>> we're just a bunch of haughty, egotistical <insert bad
>> word here> based on a snide response like the following,
>> and I quote,
>
>While your argument may seem compelling to you, you need
to understand that
>there is a reason why usenet works this way. The main
reason why most users
>resist off-topic posts is that they tend to decrease the
signal/noise ratio
>of the newsgroup. What may be interesting and compelling
for you, is noise
>to the person who needs information on a particular
topic. What ends up
>happening is that the informative posts on a particular
topic are drowned
>out by all of the off-topic posts and users who come
looking for information
>on a particular topic either don't find what they need or
have to search
>much longer than they should have to.
>
>Every so often a user such as yourself comes along with a
way that usenet
>could better serve them or some other minority group. It
seems reasonable
>enough because after all, usenet belongs to all of us and
if I want to
>participate, I should be able to right? Well, yes and
no. Most groups have
>over the years "enforced" the rules of no off-topic posts
by giving "gentle"
>reminders to the off-topic posters and asking them to
post elsewhere.
>
>While you're right, some posters do seem to get an extra
thrill out of
>telling people "where to go", many are just trying to be
helpful. Usenet is
>not the forum for those with fragile egos. Many of
the "good" responses are
>written by professionals with little time to take into
consideration the way
>an abrupt post may be percieved by other posters. Get
over it and move on
>is usually the best advice I can give to a "newbie".
>
>Lastly, if you look at the rules of conduct for using the
MS server:
>
>"Relevance to Topics: Please make sure that your postings
in discussion
>groups and chats are relevant to the subject at hand. It
is normal for some
>topics to drift from the stated subject. However, to
ensure maximum benefit
>for everyone, we encourage you to keep your postings as
close to the subject
>as possible."
>
>-Pete
>
>
>
>.
>

Dan wrote:

> I do appreciate your feedback and point of view Pete.
> Maybe I missed my mark a bit. I was basically trying to
> get across two things: courtesy and professionalism.
>
You sure hate critcism.

Unfortunately, responding to your comment in almost any
way almost validates your point.

Doubtful that I really stirred up any waters here, and not
that I was trying. Just had to say my piece. Consider it
said.

Dan.
Kc7 3 Bd8++

>-----Original Message-----
>Dan wrote:
>
>> I do appreciate your feedback and point of view Pete.
>> Maybe I missed my mark a bit. I was basically trying to
>> get across two things: courtesy and professionalism.
>>
>You sure hate critcism.
>.
>

"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:117101c4bc76$4348bde0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Unfortunately, responding to your comment in almost any
> way almost validates your point.
>
> Doubtful that I really stirred up any waters here, and not
> that I was trying. Just had to say my piece. Consider it
> said.

Dan,
The fact remains that you are not the first with such a request. While
certainly the organization of newsgroups may be unproductive for you, it has
served others well since the 80's. The traditions of usenet have a basis in
usability and productivity.

In closing, let me ask you this question:
Suppose that you are at a meeting of people discussing different types of
beer and someone walks in and wants to discuss wine. Do you think that the
whole group should then be forced to discuss wine or let the newcomer whine
alone?

-Pete

Pete;
Reading your latest post. I feel compelled to "spout off". If we were
discussing "beer" and you came into the conversation on a wine topic, most
likely we would be so "****faced" it really wouldn't matter and we would be
most happy to converse that subject with you,

Good Day.
"Pete Delgado" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:117101c4bc76$4348bde0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Unfortunately, responding to your comment in almost any
>> way almost validates your point.
>>
>> Doubtful that I really stirred up any waters here, and not
>> that I was trying. Just had to say my piece. Consider it
>> said.
>
> Dan,
> The fact remains that you are not the first with such a request. While
> certainly the organization of newsgroups may be unproductive for you, it
> has
> served others well since the 80's. The traditions of usenet have a basis
> in
> usability and productivity.
>
> In closing, let me ask you this question:
> Suppose that you are at a meeting of people discussing different types of
> beer and someone walks in and wants to discuss wine. Do you think that
> the
> whole group should then be forced to discuss wine or let the newcomer
> whine
> alone?
>
> -Pete
>
>

No Pete, we shouldn't be compelled to discuss wine (and
that wasn't the point of the orignal post). I don't think
the group turn around and shard you with rhetoric such
as "Well, let's see, we're talking about beer, there's
beer in our hands, beer in our fridges, and we're drinking
beer, so it should be OBVIOUS TO YOU that this is a beer
drinking group of folks dedicated to discussion of a
wonderful brew made from yeast, barley and hops...not
grapes!"

Even if we don't respond (mentioned in my original post -
negative reply), I feel its better than responding with
something like the above. Or to politely say, "heya,
buddy, the wine tasters have a room at
grapediscussions.com/chat that may suit your tastes" goes
a long way for everyone.

Dan
Guinness...a meal in a glass

>-----Original Message-----
>
>"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>news:117101c4bc76$4348bde0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Unfortunately, responding to your comment in almost any
>> way almost validates your point.
>>
>> Doubtful that I really stirred up any waters here, and
not
>> that I was trying. Just had to say my piece. Consider it
>> said.
>
>Dan,
>The fact remains that you are not the first with such a
request. While
>certainly the organization of newsgroups may be
unproductive for you, it has
>served others well since the 80's. The traditions of
usenet have a basis in
>usability and productivity.
>
>In closing, let me ask you this question:
>Suppose that you are at a meeting of people discussing
different types of
>beer and someone walks in and wants to discuss wine. Do
you think that the
>whole group should then be forced to discuss wine or let
the newcomer whine
>alone?
>
>-Pete
>
>
>.
>