David Vallner <david / vallner.net> wrote:
>Charles O Nutter wrote:
>
>> My time is infinitely more important to me than yours.
>>
>
>Yes. And everyone fails to care spending his time, infinitely more
>valuable than yours for him, to do what you can't be bothered to.
>
>I call courtesy again. I realise that the time of others is infinitely
>valuable to them, and therefore follow what the generally preferred form
>is out of respect to them.

Perhaps his time is not worth much to him either.  He says he is
willing to waste time generating Usenet/Forum/MailingList
articles that are less than effective because he won't take the
time to learn how to communicate efficiently.  (The opposite of
"If you can't be good, be good at it." ?? :-)

That of course assumes an intent to communicate, which may or
may not actually exist (for many people, though I'm not accusing
the OP of this).

It is a binary condition, where some people post articles
intended for others (to read and understand and respond to),
while some people post to generate therapeutic noise.  It makes
them feel good, and readers are irrelevant.  For them Usenet is
a one-way medium.  We see all shades of that, where there are
many who post that clearly never ever read anything posted by
anyone else, down to those who do read others, but are still
essentially posting only for their own benefit.

(I think that when social science researchers discover the "data
bank" that is in a Usenet archive, there will be no end of what
can be learned about the human mind.)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd / apaflo.com