Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:00:36 +0200
Message-ID: <447aa962$0$31646$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>
>>It takes more stamina to show ignorance in this newsgroup >>now, than it did say a year ago. I have recently refrained >>from asking questions revealing ignorance because of >>anticipated reactions here - even when it would just be >>about exact wording.
>
>
> Strange, not my experience here at all. I dropped by a few
> weeks ago, readily admitted I was ignorant, participated a
> little, asked some questions, and was treated VERY
> well. When asking database related questions I tried to do
> so with humility and was not vociferous. Could this have
> been a factor in my treatment?
Yes, I think so.
But it also helped, that you are very willing to accept the RM - even thought you do have some gaps in your knowledge about it - no problem for you here, a few months of reading will help you putting it in perspective.
The point is that if you weren't very willing to accept the RM, my guess is you would not be treated as well, even if you would have been as humble as you were/are.
(BTW I don't even know what "vociferous" means. Because I only saw it in belittling utterances I didn't bother to look it up).
You weren't humble towards dawn. Could her bullying by several posters here been a factor in that?
Here is the stuff I recently refrained from asking new questions about:
> Perhaps your hesitancy has more to do with personal pride?
Not really (I think). More the anticipation of an uphill battle of answering a lot of traps disguised as questions.
> If so you could create an alternate google account (I would
> go for "y" to match up with "x") and post questions using
> that account.
Actually "x" has pointed out several of my mistakes.
> Perhaps you will discover good treatment and
> relax enough to post questions from you main account.
Heh. I suspect regular readers would uncover my disguise almost immediately. Faking is one of the basic human skills I am not good at. Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 10:00:36 CEST