From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 8 15:41:55 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911AE10656D9 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:41:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jon@radel.com) Received: from wave.radel.com (wave.radel.com [216.143.151.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DCC8FC2A for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wave.radel.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.1.6) with PIPE id 10127116; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:41:54 -0400 Received: from [192.168.43.221] (account jon@radel.com HELO braeburn.local) by wave.radel.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 10127114 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:41:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4D9F2CB6.4000705@radel.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:41:42 -0400 From: Jon Radel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4D9EF6CD.3040004@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050707030702030303080803" X-Radel.com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact Jon for more information X-Radel.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro CLI mailer X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Linksys-E4200 Wireless N-router X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:41:55 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms050707030702030303080803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4/8/11 11:21 AM, Carmel wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:51:41 +0100 > Arthur Chance articulated: > >> On 04/07/11 15:32, Carmel wrote: >>> Odhiambo, please don't CC me. I don't need multiple copies of the >>> same post. >> >> CCing the original poster is standard etiquette on FreeBSD mailing >> lists. Most lists are open to anybody to mail to without being signed >> up, so when replying there's no way of knowing whether or not the >> questioner will see a reply that only goes to the list. This is >> especially true of freebsd-questions. > > 1) I have posted several times on this list and only received CC's on > two of them that I can recall. Obviously your standard is not so > standard. That's the nice thing about standards, there are so many of them to=20 choose from. > > 2) I placed a very clear notice at the bottom of my post(s). Many > people would consider that a clue as to my desire to receive multiple > copies of the same document. Expecting people to actually read and react to your disclaimer....now=20 that's *not* standard, given the wild proliferation of meaningless=20 disclaimers necessitated by current thinking on various liability matters= =2E > > 3) Perhaps it is only me; however, most of the major lists that I > employ all require a registration by the poster prior to being allowed > to post. Try to be friendly and helpful to non-subscribers...much too old school=20 for a modern dude like you, it appears. > > 4) I have seen several posts where the OP requested to be CC'd because > they were not registered members of the list. Obviously, they were > aware of the necessity of being CC'd or reading the archives in order > to review any posts to their request. Now, is someone is just so plain > stupid that they are not aware of that simple fact, then they are too > stupid to be posting to begin with. You're conflating ignorance and stupidity. Not really the same thing.=20 Shall we have a rousing discussion as to whether this is ignorant or=20 stupid of you? Feh! > > 5) If you noticed, I asked Odhiambo very nicely not to include me in a > CC. I am sure he meant well; however, the inevitable destruction of > electrons in the transmission of the superfluous document could have > been avoided. > If you'd just shaken your head and gone away quietly, instead of making=20 your numbered list and sharing with us all, a lot more electrons would=20 have gone on to have happy, productive lives doing something useful.=20 But, no, you had to move up the heat death of the universe by 3 seconds. --=20 --Jon Radel jon@radel.com --------------ms050707030702030303080803--