| e p chandler 2007-03-26, 7:05 pm |
| On Mar 26, 5:23 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> In article <qNPNh.75$5e...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gary Scott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>
> I guess it is, isn't it? Thread drift is much more common in some of
> the groups where I hang out, and that probably influenced my decision
> to post something admittedly far off-topic for this group. My thinking
> was that by changing the subject line and adding "OT" I wouldn't raise
> any hackles. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll try to remember not to do it
> again, though. It's just that "doubt" for "question" is a pet peeve
> of mine -- though something I've learned from this discussion is that
> maybe it shouldn't be.
>
> I do kind of wonder how many other people looked at the subject line
> and said "oh no, another flamefest ...." Maybe everyone else knows
> Indian English better than I do!
>
> --
> B. L. Massingill
> ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Using "doubt" for "question" is still a minor peeve with me. IMO there
are other more annoying things that I regard as breaches of
"netiquette":
[flame on]
1. posting without reading or doing a search of newsgroups.
Particularly a FAQ that has been answered both recently and
frequently. [Yes sometimes it is hard to do a good search without
knowing the right "term of art". :-).]
2. posting a request for help without supplying helpful details such
as compiler, operating system, computer hardware, etc.
3. posting a request for help without showing work already done,
particularly by students apparently looking for instant answers to
homework problems. [I'm perfectly willing to spend my own time going
over the programs of others given something to work with.]
4. posting a request for answers to common interview questions [not a
real problem in this newsgroup but present in others].
[flame off]
-- elliot
|