Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Netiquette
Message-ID: <2895@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 21:26:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2895
Posted: Tue Jul 22 21:26:14 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jul-86 00:18:32 EDT
References: <926@tekig5.UUCP>
Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Organization: System Development Corporation R&D, Santa Monica
Lines: 430

This was originally going to be a reply, but I felt it had some mild
entertainment value, so here it is for public consumption and condemnation.

In article <926@tekig5.UUCP> the latest netiquette article says:
>connected together over a network that spans most of North America, Western
>Europe and some areas of the South Pacific.

Japan and Korea are not in the South Pacific.  I think there are also sites
in Israel, which is in Asia.  I'm not sure that Australia likes to be called
an "area of the South Pacific."

>     ** The use of USENET is a PRIVELEGE. **

FLAME ON!!!

As long as you're shouting, it's
	PRIVILEGE

FLAME OFF!!!  :-) of course

>entire network.  The phone bills at times can be enormous (sometimes over 
>$1,000 a week for a single computer).

You might add

	A single posting of a large source file costs the net (as a whole)
	thousands of dollars.  If someone requests something large, e-mail
	it to them, don't post it.  Better yet, send a short note saying that
	you are willing to send it, unless they can get it from someone closer.
	Even better, flame them to a crisp for not getting it from the
	moderator of mod.sources.

>...  From now on, we will discuss netnews etiquette only.

Not strictly true--there are several more side comments about not abusing mail.
For instance:
	"Possibly send the offender a short CALM note through e-mail pointing
	out the offense."

>  Netnews is organized by subject into separate 'newsgroups'.  There are over
>150 newsgroups in netnews dealing with subjects ranging from bird watching to

More like 250.  Plus any local groups.

>  Science newsgroups discuss the natural sciences (plus a few of the unnatural
>ones) such as physics, astronomy, etc.

How about mentioning some of the unnatural ones?  I found myself wondering if
astronomy was unnatural.

>...  The main groups in this section are net.news and net.news.group, plus
>mod.announce.newusers (the newsgroup you are currently reading).

Isn't net.* changing to world.*, or other things?  There are a bunch of
net.*'s in this document.

(As it happens, I'm not reading mod.announce.newusers. :-)

>Generally, moderators do just what you would do IF you adhered to the
>netiquette.  They do not censor your writing, they serve as a means
>to prevent a discussion from become to [sic] voluminous for USENET to handle.

This is unclear.  The first sentence appears to say that the moderator will
edit your article, and the second does not adequately clarify it.  This could
be taken to mean: "The moderators actively censor your article, but for the
good of the net we won't call this censorship."  A recent new moderator who
took this attitude was roundly flamed for exceeding his authority.  Perhaps
you should add something to the effect that "To this end, most moderators simply
accept or reject articles."

>     ** When answering someone's question, *never* post the answer. **

This is very much overstated.  I can think of three situations where it is
entirely valid to post the answer.

    1) if you happen to KNOW that you're the only person with the answer.

	Example: "Why did the author of rn use the silly C style he did?"

    2) if the question is such that nobody will come up with the same answer.

	Example: "What is your favorite character from all of literature, and
	why?"

    3) if the question is addressed to a particular someone of indeterminate
        location.

	Example: "Will some official representative of the Foo Bar Company
	please comment on this, if you are on the net?"

In addition, there is the problem of answering a question posed by someone
to whom you can't send mail.  This is a situation where one has to use one's
best judgement.  Making blanket assertions about never posting answers will
only cause people to ignore the document.  Kinda like setting the speed limit
to 55.

> However, there are a few that do warrant your attention.  They are:
>'Subject:', 'Distribution:', and 'Newsgroup:'.

That's "Newsgroups:"!

>...  "Newsgroup:" describes which newsgroup the article should be posted in.

Newsgroups: !!

>..."Newsgroup:" line allows you to post it to more than one.  While the 

Newsgroups: !!!

>  To cross-post, you just enter all the newsgroup names you wish to cross-post
>to on the "Newsgroup:" control line.  It's that simple.

Newsgroups: !!!!

(And it's not that simple.  They have to separate the newsgroups with commas.
Some people have had their whole day ruined...)

>... "Newsgroup:" line (most news software will let you edit not only the the

Newsgroups: !!!!!

>o  There is an extra header line called 'Followup-To:' that was designed for

"Followup-To:" is not mentioned in the list above.  I can see an argument
for not doing so, but it should be thought about, anyway.  Maybe it has
already, who knows?

>Q:  How should I handle followups?

This section has nothing to do with followups.  It has to do with replies, and
with other people NOT doing followups.  I suggest something like:  "How should
I handle answers to my questions?"

>  Since netnews is a two-entity relationship between the poster and the 
>reader, it is important that both cooperate in the procedures for handling
>followups.

Make that:
	...in the procedures for reducing redundant followups.

>  When a poster originally posts an article to netnews, he or she 
>automatically takes on certain responsibilities (not the least of which is 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that the posting should contribute to the discussion in a productive way).
>These responsibilities involve 'followup management'.
>
>  Because e-mail is emphasized over netnews, those who wish to reply to a
>posting should normally do so through e-mail....
>Therefore, it is the poster's responsibility to gather all responses to the
>original posting, and to 'summarize' them for the net community.

In practice, this never works unless the original question asker uses the
magic words, "Mail to me, and I will summarize to the net."  To say that this
will happen automatically, or even that it SHOULD, is deluding to new users
and thus counterproductive.  You should stress that the *offer* of summarizing
should be made by the original poster, not that this does or should happen
automatically.

Indeed, there have been times when people have become upset because their
private reply to an article was later posted to the world without permission.
The de facto assumption of the net is that e-mail is kept private unless
some mention was made, either in the original article, or the reply, about
summarizing to the net.

On top of this, there may be some people that I don't trust to summarize what
I think.

>Q:  How do others on the net handle followups?

*THIS* is the question that should say "How should I handle followups?" or
better, "How do I avoid posting a redundant followup?"

>  The methods vary, but I can recommend one that is used by many on the net.

I've forgetten who "I" is.

>...
>think about them.  Then rerun news and send a followup to each unread article
>as appropriate (or don't if you like.  Responding to an article is never
>imperitive.)

FLAME ON!!!

That's "imperative"!

FLAME OFF!!!  :-) again

>Q:  Is there any procedure I should follow when making a followup?
>
>     1) Decide beforehand what it is you want to say.
      ...
>     9) Read it over and make sure it will make sense to the reader.

9a)  Let someone else read it over your shoulder and see if it makes sense
	to the reader.

>    10) Check the header information.
>	   ...
>    11) Post/Mail it.
>
>
>Q:  Who is responsible for making the net understandable?
>
>	...it is ultimately the responsibility of the
>	poster to make a posting as understandable as possible....

I like the analogy that C. S. Lewis came up with:  writing unambiguously
is like driving sheep up a country lane--if there is a gate open on either
side, someone will go through it.  Good writing shuts all the gates before
the sheep get there, not after.

>  If you are reading a posting and you find it impossible to believe that the
>poster is being serious, assume that they are not.  If you are still unsure,
>ask the poster (through e-mail) to confirm their intentions.

Another very important rule of thumb:
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
    by stupidity.  (I don't remember who said this.)

In other words, if you aren't sure whether they are attacking you, they
probably aren't.  More needless flames arise because the person you were
flaming back at wasn't flaming in the first place.  Always give the writer
the benefit of the doubt.

>     ** If you are the one posting sarcasm, choose your words carefully. **
>
>  NEVER assume that your sarcasm will be obvious.  Given the number of people
...
>clearly.  Always give the reader the benefit of the doubt.

>Your local manuals can tell you how the software on your system works or you 
>can use the Unix command:  "tr [a-z][A-Z] [n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]".

This is not portable.  In the first place, you need quotes around the arguments.
On top of that, it won't work on V7 and BSD systems.  I believe the following to
be completely portable:

	tr '[a-m][n-z][A-M][N-Z]' '[n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]'

(Note that on BSD systems this translates square brackets to themselves,
which is okay.  Of course, they could leave out the brackets entirely.)

>Q:  What is a flame?
>
>  A 'flame' is a strongly worded opinion stated without substantiation.
>It often includes a negative comment directed at an individual or group.
> ...
>
>     ** NEVER EVER POST FLAMES TO THE NET. **
>
>  There are no exceptions.  Even if the flame is only one line long surrounded
>by 99 other lines of otherwise useful information, it still does not belong.
>
>  If you must flame a person, do it ONLY through e-mail.  Do not burden the
>rest of netnews with your flammable opinions.
>
>  There is a gray border between flames and advice.  Some people, when giving
>advice, do it in a somewhat 'flameboyant' way without necessarily meaning to
					       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>do so.  If you see what you think might be a flame on the net, read it over
>carefully.  See if it isn't just advice presented on a hot plate.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!

When I give advice on a hot plate, I MEAN to do so!  Some people have grown(?)
up with parents that use emotion as the signal that Something Important is
about to be Uttered.  These people don't respond to reason, and need to have
their ears sizzled off before you have their attention.  Granted there are times
that such "advice" should be restricted to e-mail, but there are other times
when it is appropriate to SHOUT on the net:

	1) when the scuzbucket says "Send flames to /dev/null".

	2) when the net is in danger of following a false leader to utter
	    destruction.
		Example: the recent junker crisis.

	3) when you want to flame a class of idiots without making any personal
	    enemies.
		Example: you wish to try to discourage the perverts who
		post non-rumors to net.rumor.

	4) when you wish to make a point that the @#$&@#$% SOBs will remember.
		Example: this flame.

	5) when you are one of the net.gods, and nobody's remembering their
	    netiquette, and SOMEONE has to remind them.

	6) when you flame for literary effect, and can do so without offending
	    anyone.

SO THERE!!!

FLAME OFF.

Of course, none of this excuses lying or libel, and flames should be clearly
labeled like the opinion page in the newspaper, but they have their uses.
Good writing doesn't have to read like a technical journal.  Trying to force
the net into a sterile, emotionless mold will break the forcer, not the forcee.

>  And please, if you do see a flame on the net, do not compound it by flaming
>back ON THE NET.  That would be like trying to prevent someone from burning
>down your house by blowing it up yourself!

The analogy limps somewhat.  It's a bit more like you and the burglar and maybe
the police swapping buckshot.  One shot won't bring the house down, but there's
a cumulative effect on the habitability of the house.  The question is: do you
really have to shoot at this burglar, or will he slink off given the chance?

>	Writing Style:
>
>o  Write BELOW the readers' reading level.  The average person in the U.S.
>   reads on a 5th grade level, the average professional on about the 12th
>   grade level.

This is balderdash.  If nobody ever wrote above somebody's reading level,
nobody would ever read better.  Or are you of the misguided but unfortunately
popular opinion that people should only learn from graded textbooks?

>o  Pick your words to have only ONE meaning.  Vagueness is considered artistic
>   in literary circles.  We are not literary here.

This is also balderdash, in the sense that there are very few words in the
language that have only one meaning, and we would be hard pressed to write
in that subset of the language.  Oh, that isn't what you meant?  Physician,
heal thyself.

Furthermore, who says we aren't literary here?  Or shouldn't be?  Who is
being the stuffeder shirt here, the literary or the anti-literary person?
I thought I just read something about considering Usenet articles to be
"published."  If that ain't literary, what is?

There is a semblance of a valid point here, however, which is:
	Do not write ambiguous sentences unless you intend to, and you know
	the consequences, and find them acceptable.

>o  People can grasp only about seven things at once.  This means ideas in a
>   paragraph, major sections, etc.

This document violates this at the Question/Answer level.  No wonder I'm so
confused.

>o  There are several variations on any one sentence.  A passive, questioning
>   or negative sentence takes longer to read.

Is that so?

>o  Subtlety is not communicated well in written form, especially over a
>   computer.

It can be communicated well if you set people up to expect it.  This is just
part of good writing.

>o  The above applies to humor as well.

I'm sorry to hear that net.jokes disagrees with you.

>o  It's MUCH easier to read a mixture of upper and lower case letters.

iS tHaT sO?

>o  Leaving out articles (such as "the", "a", "an", etc.) for "brevity" mangles
>   the meaning of your sentences and takes longer to read.  It saves you time
>   at your reader's expense.

I agree, for once.  Furthermore, expressing your ideas in a "write-only"
language denies you an audience, since people will simply skip the article.

>o  Remember - this is an international network, some people may use language
>   differently because they come from a different culture.
>
>o  Remember - your future employer may be reading your articles.

...and your future employer is definitely from a different culture.   :-)

Also,
	Remember, not everyone is using the same news software, terminal,
	or network.  Many articles that show up on Usenet were written by
	people who never heard of Usenet, let alone Usenet etiquette.

>  If you do see an offense, assume that it was an honest mistake...

The "Never attribute to malice" quote might go here nicely.

>  The only thing worse then a fanatic, is someone who argues with a fanatic.

That's a fanatical statement if I ever heard one!  Mind you, I'm not arguing
with it...

>  According to Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap."

Actually, the netiquette document is an exception.  I'd say it's about 10% crap.
The other 90% is pretty good, the tenor of this article notwithstanding.

>  That does not mean that you should accept garbage, of course.  Just don't
>expect it to go away by itself.

I don't.  Why do think I'm writing this?

>  If you wish to alleviate it then you should (1) follow the netiquette and
>(2) urge others to do so.  When urging others, do so calmly.  Most people
>will not pay attention to you if you beat them over the head with the
>netiquette.  They are even more likely to violate it just out of spite.

You DON'T have to do it calmly.  You DO have to know how to harness your
emotions to produce the desired effect.  USENET IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE,
A TECHNICAL JOURNAL!!!!!  

I will, however, entertain the argument that the netiquette document must
be greatly overstated to have the desired effect.  There's a nice irony in
there somewhere...

>Q:  Any other advice?
>
>  Never forget that the person on the other side of the screen is human.
>
>  Your postings reflect on YOU.  Be proud of them.
>
>  Think carefully about your audience.
>
>  When quoting, Summarize Summarize Summarize!
>
>  The best postings are those thought out over a long period of time.

And, lastly, don't SHOUT unless you NEED to.

[Erk frits!  I have a headache from reading my own article!] 

Larry Wall
sdcrdcr!lwall