Re: Tact and the Single Programmer (was Re: CD of all Files on Asimov)

[xyzzy@ponyexpress.net (Edward Franks)]

In the missive <52nhne$8u9@darla.visi.com>, Nathan Mates - 
nathan@visi.com thoughtfully writes...
> In article <01bbabba$5e23eca0$833434ce@sleepy.ponyexpress.net>,
> Edward Franks <xyzzy@ponyexpress.net> wrote:
> >	Now that is the first time I ever saw some state that politeness is
> >"fluff".  It seems that Mr. Mates thinks courtesy should be uncommon
> ><grin>.
> 
>    Sarcasm... not everyone gets it.

[Snip]

	Why is it so many people use the sarcasm defense but won't take 
the time to indicate such in their original post?

Here is the original sequence (edited only to fit properly).

[Begin Sequence]

     >> Paul Creager <wily@svpal.svpal.org> wrote:
     >>>If I had to choose, I go with Nathan!  Even if he does have less
     >>>tact than a drill sargeant.  ;)
     >> 
     >>    Tact? I use tact for putting the latest Dilbert on the
     >> bulletin boards at work :)
     >> 
     >>    [I can do tact when I feel like it. However, most of the time,
     >> I prefer to get the point across without any fluff.]
     >> 
     >> Nathan Mates
     >
     > Now that is the first time I ever saw some state that politeness
     > is "fluff".  It seems that Mr. Mates thinks courtesy should be
     > uncommon <grin>.
     >
     > Edward Franks

[End Sequence]

---

	So, to me, by using an aside (the sentences in the []s) _without_ 
a smiley or other 'tone-of-speech' marker you come across as dead 
serious.
	What do the rest of you who read this newsgroup think?  Should we 
when we post spend the time making sure we indicate the 'tone' of oour 
postings?  I have noticed that we posters are tending to over-react.  
Should we start marking our rhetorical, sarcastic, and humourous posts?


Edward

-- 

Edward Franks
efranks@msn.com
xyzzy@ponyexpress.net

-==(UDIC)==- Fortran Dragon

Microsoft Certified Product Specialist: Windows 3.1

"Ain't I a stinker?" -- Bugs Bunny