Re: DESC TABLE <table> does seem to word with ODBC
Despite the subject line about DESC TABLE over ODBC, this thread contains no technical content on that problem at all. It is entirely a meta-argument about Usenet etiquette: several regulars (Paul Watson, Jonathan Leffler) said they often won't bother decoding 'remove DELETE_ to reply' anti-spam addresses and may not answer such posters, partly because many c.d.i readers get the group as email via the IIUG bridge. Others countered that questions asked on the newsgroup should simply be answered there, where replies are also searchable. No technical resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > > > > >"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a 'crit dans le message de > >news:pan.2004.03.29.15.58.37.248246.1445@bloomberg.net... > >> > >> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not send you a reply > >if > >> you use a no-spam address. This one's written so, I'll be nice. > >> > What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? > I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. > > nebojsa > ------------------------------------ > Remove spam block (DELETE_) to reply -- Paul Watson # Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional Fax: +44 1436 678693 # Mob: +44 7818 003457 # www.oninit.com #
I am not expecting answer via e-mail. I am looking for answer on NG. Does it mean that you will not send the answer to NG, too? Nebojsa On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:19:53 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: >Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, >you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! > >Nebojsa Sevo wrote: >> >> > >> >"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a �crit dans le message de >> >news:pan.2004.03.29.15.58.37.248246.1445@bloomberg.net... >> >> >> >> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not send you a reply >> >if >> >> you use a no-spam address. This one's written so, I'll be nice. >> >> >> What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? >> I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. >> >> nebojsa >> ------------------------------------ >> Remove spam block (DELETE_) to reply ------------------------------------ Remove spam block (DELETE_) to reply
Speaking only for myself, in most cases I would not reply to the NG Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > > I am not expecting answer via e-mail. I am looking for answer on NG. Does it > mean that you will not send the answer to NG, too? > > Nebojsa > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:19:53 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: > > >Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, > >you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! > > > >Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a 'crit dans le message de > >> >news:pan.2004.03.29.15.58.37.248246.1445@bloomberg.net... > >> >> > >> >> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not send you a reply > >> >if > >> >> you use a no-spam address. This one's written so, I'll be nice. > >> >> > >> What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? > >> I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. > >> > >> nebojsa > >> ------------------------------------ > >> Remove spam block (DELETE_) to reply > > ------------------------------------ > Remove spam block (DELETE_) to reply -- Paul Watson # Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional Fax: +44 1436 678693 # Mob: +44 7818 003457 # www.oninit.com #
Paul Watson wrote: > Speaking only for myself, in most cases I would not reply to the > NG > > Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > >> I am not expecting answer via e-mail. I am looking for answer on >> NG. Does it mean that you will not send the answer to NG, too? >> >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:19:53 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: >>>Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, >>>you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! >>> >>>Nebojsa Sevo wrote: >>>>>"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a 'crit: >>>>>> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not >>>>>> send you a reply if you use a no-spam address. >>>> >>>>What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? >>>>I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. Everybody needs to remember that about half (give or take 25%) of the readership of this news group receives the messages by email, courtesy of a bi-directional email-news bridge run by the Informix International User Group. The people who read messages by email tend to think in terms of email answers - and get stroppy when they can't just reply to the person asking the question. The people who read the messages via a regular NNTP news feed don't get so worried about it. Both systems have their merits and demerits. Spam blocking email addresses are legitimate as a defense measure (not that I bother - but the Swen virus is still a nuisance, albeit one that has subsided a lot since its release back in September, or thereabouts). But people who use spam-blocked email addresses have to expect that they won't get answers from some people who might otherwise help. FWIW, if I think a question needs a private response but the reply email is spam-blocked, I don't usually respond. If I'm willing to give a public reply, no problem. Sorry - that's life; I have better things to do than reverse spam-blocking. (Spam-blocked emails sent direct to me go straight to /dev/null!) -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/
Jonathan, Your reply as well as the rest of the arroganti here in c.d.i is the height of some of the worst attitude I think I've ever seen here. As much as I respect the technical excellence of you and some of the people here, to even suggest that it is too much to spend a few extra keyclicks on an email address really shows bad form. You would be better to have never taken a position that suggests such arrogance. Same for the rest of you, you're sounding a little too high and mighty to argue such a petty point. Arrogance is what put Informix out of business in the first place, do all yourselves a favor and leave it in Menlo Park. Shame on all of you. "Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u%Qac.10277$Dv2.5165@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Paul Watson wrote: > > Speaking only for myself, in most cases I would not reply to the > > NG > > > > Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > > > >> I am not expecting answer via e-mail. I am looking for answer on > >> NG. Does it mean that you will not send the answer to NG, too? > >> > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:19:53 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: > >>>Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, > >>>you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! > >>> > >>>Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > >>>>>"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a 'crit: > >>>>>> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not > >>>>>> send you a reply if you use a no-spam address. > >>>> > >>>>What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? > >>>>I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. > > Everybody needs to remember that about half (give or take 25%) of the > readership of this news group receives the messages by email, courtesy > of a bi-directional email-news bridge run by the Informix > International User Group. The people who read messages by email tend > to think in terms of email answers - and get stroppy when they can't > just reply to the person asking the question. The people who read the > messages via a regular NNTP news feed don't get so worried about it. > > Both systems have their merits and demerits. Spam blocking email > addresses are legitimate as a defense measure (not that I bother - but > the Swen virus is still a nuisance, albeit one that has subsided a lot > since its release back in September, or thereabouts). But people who > use spam-blocked email addresses have to expect that they won't get > answers from some people who might otherwise help. > > FWIW, if I think a question needs a private response but the reply > email is spam-blocked, I don't usually respond. If I'm willing to > give a public reply, no problem. Sorry - that's life; I have better > things to do than reverse spam-blocking. (Spam-blocked emails sent > direct to me go straight to /dev/null!) > > -- > Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> > Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com > Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ >
"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e4Uac.137159$3Y1.102915@fe09.usenetserver.com... > Jonathan, > > Your reply as well as the rest of the arroganti here in c.d.i > is the height of some of the worst attitude I think I've ever seen > here. As much as I respect the technical excellence of you and > some of the people here, to even suggest that it is too much to > spend a few extra keyclicks on an email address really shows bad > form. You would be better to have never taken a position that > suggests such arrogance. Same for the rest of you, you're sounding > a little too high and mighty to argue such a petty point. Arrogance > is what put Informix out of business in the first place, do all > yourselves a favor and leave it in Menlo Park. > > Shame on all of you. Er .... to be fair to him he simply said that he personally doesn't want to bother "decoding" anti-spam email addresses. It was just an observation. Neither Jonathan, Madison Pruet, Paul Taylor nor any of the knowledgable and helpful non-IBMers *have* to help out at all on c.d.i. They do it in their own time, and out of a sense of helpfulness. Your criticism is therefore unfair.
My attitude is someone asks for help and then makes my life difficult when I try to reply - I don't need the hassle, not even a few clicks worth. It's not business it's personal :-)) Data Goob wrote: > > Jonathan, > > Your reply as well as the rest of the arroganti here in c.d.i > is the height of some of the worst attitude I think I've ever seen > here. As much as I respect the technical excellence of you and > some of the people here, to even suggest that it is too much to > spend a few extra keyclicks on an email address really shows bad > form. You would be better to have never taken a position that > suggests such arrogance. Same for the rest of you, you're sounding > a little too high and mighty to argue such a petty point. Arrogance > is what put Informix out of business in the first place, do all > yourselves a favor and leave it in Menlo Park. > > Shame on all of you. > > "Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u%Qac.10277$Dv2.5165@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > Paul Watson wrote: > > > Speaking only for myself, in most cases I would not reply to the > > > NG > > > > > > Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > > > > > >> I am not expecting answer via e-mail. I am looking for answer on > > >> NG. Does it mean that you will not send the answer to NG, too? > > >> > > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:19:53 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: > > >>>Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, > > >>>you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! > > >>> > > >>>Nebojsa Sevo wrote: > > >>>>>"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a 'crit: > > >>>>>> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not > > >>>>>> send you a reply if you use a no-spam address. > > >>>> > > >>>>What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? > > >>>>I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. > > > > Everybody needs to remember that about half (give or take 25%) of the > > readership of this news group receives the messages by email, courtesy > > of a bi-directional email-news bridge run by the Informix > > International User Group. The people who read messages by email tend > > to think in terms of email answers - and get stroppy when they can't > > just reply to the person asking the question. The people who read the > > messages via a regular NNTP news feed don't get so worried about it. > > > > Both systems have their merits and demerits. Spam blocking email > > addresses are legitimate as a defense measure (not that I bother - but > > the Swen virus is still a nuisance, albeit one that has subsided a lot > > since its release back in September, or thereabouts). But people who > > use spam-blocked email addresses have to expect that they won't get > > answers from some people who might otherwise help. > > > > FWIW, if I think a question needs a private response but the reply > > email is spam-blocked, I don't usually respond. If I'm willing to > > give a public reply, no problem. Sorry - that's life; I have better > > things to do than reverse spam-blocking. (Spam-blocked emails sent > > direct to me go straight to /dev/null!) > > > > -- > > Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> > > Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com > > Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ > > -- Paul Watson # Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional Fax: +44 1436 678693 # Mob: +44 7818 003457 # www.oninit.com #
Now I am very confused. Only what I am expecting is if I put a question to NG then the answer will be on NG, too. I am not expecting answer via e-mail. nebojsa On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:54:30 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: >My attitude is someone asks for help and then makes my life difficult >when I try to reply - I don't need the hassle, not even a few clicks >worth. It's not business it's personal :-)) > >Data Goob wrote: >> >> Jonathan, >> >> Your reply as well as the rest of the arroganti here in c.d.i >> is the height of some of the worst attitude I think I've ever seen >> here. As much as I respect the technical excellence of you and >> some of the people here, to even suggest that it is too much to >> spend a few extra keyclicks on an email address really shows bad >> form. You would be better to have never taken a position that >> suggests such arrogance. Same for the rest of you, you're sounding >> a little too high and mighty to argue such a petty point. Arrogance >> is what put Informix out of business in the first place, do all >> yourselves a favor and leave it in Menlo Park. >> >> Shame on all of you. >> >> "Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u%Qac.10277$Dv2.5165@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> > Paul Watson wrote: >> > > Speaking only for myself, in most cases I would not reply to the >> > > NG >> > > >> > > Nebojsa Sevo wrote: >> > > >> > >> I am not expecting answer via e-mail. I am looking for answer on >> > >> NG. Does it mean that you will not send the answer to NG, too? >> > >> >> > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:19:53 +0100, Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> wrote: >> > >>>Some of us won't respond to an request from an 'no spam' account, >> > >>>you ask for help and don't give me an account to respond to!! >> > >>> >> > >>>Nebojsa Sevo wrote: >> > >>>>>"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> a �crit: >> > >>>>>> PS - While I appreciate the reasons, most folk will not >> > >>>>>> send you a reply if you use a no-spam address. >> > >>>> >> > >>>>What is so bad in using "no-spam" block? >> > >>>>I have a lot of problems when I open my e-mail adress in NG. >> > >> > Everybody needs to remember that about half (give or take 25%) of the >> > readership of this news group receives the messages by email, courtesy >> > of a bi-directional email-news bridge run by the Informix >> > International User Group. The people who read messages by email tend >> > to think in terms of email answers - and get stroppy when they can't >> > just reply to the person asking the question. The people who read the >> > messages via a regular NNTP news feed don't get so worried about it. >> > >> > Both systems have their merits and demerits. Spam blocking email >> > addresses are legitimate as a defense measure (not that I bother - but >> > the Swen virus is still a nuisance, albeit one that has subsided a lot >> > since its release back in September, or thereabouts). But people who >> > use spam-blocked email addresses have to expect that they won't get >> > answers from some people who might otherwise help. >> > >> > FWIW, if I think a question needs a private response but the reply >> > email is spam-blocked, I don't usually respond. If I'm willing to >> > give a public reply, no problem. Sorry - that's life; I have better >> > things to do than reverse spam-blocking. (Spam-blocked emails sent >> > direct to me go straight to /dev/null!) >> > >> > -- >> > Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> >> > Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com >> > Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ >> > ------------------------------------ Remove spam block (DELETE_) to reply
"Nebojsa Sevo" <DELETE_mips@zg.htnet.hr> wrote in message news:2l6o6014nv0he9ug2pv4v59ho8rsoeu7v4@4ax.com... > Now I am very confused. > Only what I am expecting is if I put a question to NG then the answer will be on > NG, too. I am not expecting answer via e-mail. Exactly. If you ask on usenet, you should be answered on usenet. Anti-spam emails addresses are fine, IMHO, because they don't, and shouldn't, matter. People you insist on offline replies should remember that private emails don't google at all well. -- Richard