[sf-lug] correction/clarification/(un?)helpful/intention/attitude/ ???

[Michael Paoli]

Hmmmmm...

I thought the comment/correction/clarification was helpful and a  
"value add" ...
I think I'd count that as at least bothering to lift a finger (did  
presumably require
some typing after all).  Okay, perhaps a bit terse, and perhaps up to  
highly ambiguous
regarding intent/attitude, but I don't see anything inherently  
implying negative
attitude or the like.

And unfortunately, humans, being, well, ... human and all that, ... if  
there's ambiguity,
I think the stats are something like 90% of the time folks will  
interpret the more/most
negative - most especially if it applies to themselves.

So, there tend to be these social conventions more-or-less followed,  
to sprinkle niceties
about (please, thank you, etc.).  Easy to forget 'em (I certainly  
manage to often omit),
as they mostly don't really add to the *information* content.

2+2=4

If you would please, 2+2=4, if you would kindly accept that, thank you  
very much.

Well, expectations do matter ... context, cultures, even familial  
differences or other
circumstances (e.g. work, or even what context within what work),  
maybe even what someone(s)
did or didn't have for breakfast or whatever.

And personal preferences matter ... and differ.  E.g. most of the time  
I could/would
rather do without those "niceties" - and just go with relevant  
facts/information to
get done or work towards what's to be done/resolved, ... but, okay, sure, an
occasional and sincere light sprinkling ... but mostly without.

In other contexts those niceties may be effectively necessities - may  
need to be the
(social) lubricant that gets the gears to turn - or turn smoothly.

And also, email - the communication is quite "flat" - body language,  
intonation,
effectively quite stripped of all that - so further ambiguity and  
greater probability
of misinterpretation (e.g. jokes or "playful teasing" can be  
hazardous, and quite
backfire).

Not really at all to pick out any specific examples, but just  
commenting a bit generally
on the matter.

Seems there ought be some kind of "rule"/approach/handy saying? :-) ...
be careful/cautious on the interpretation - try not to read into it  
more than is
there, nor infer negative or more negative than what is or was  
probably intended
(and us being mere humans, that one is dang hard to get anywhere close  
to correct,
can we blame evolution and/or psychology?).  And on the flip side, try  
to be reasonably
careful in the writing - often things may be interpreted in a rather  
to quite negative
sense, when that's not at all the intent.  And, probably doesn't  
generally hurt to
at least occasionally sprinkle in some nicety(/ies) ... err at least a  
wee bit on the
side of caution?

Anyway, just my $0.02 worth, or so.  And no, not sure what the earlier of the
referred to "the second time in a row" was or may have been - I was  
aiming to address
more generally, rather than to attempt to at all pick apart this  
specific one (or
series or whatever).

And bus vs. PCI ID?  Did kind'a about half catch my eye on first pass - but I
didn't check, or look that closely or comment upon it ... I probably  
approximately
thought folks would figure it out and/or if something wasn't quite  
correct someone
would likely manage to mention it ... and so it came to pass.

And yes, thanks, both, and all, for your valuable contributions!
(and, yep, almost forgot to include that last bit!  8-O! ... and does that
tend to change interpretations or approximations thereof?  Probably, and maybe
even significantly.  But would the intent or attitude be different?  No, but
inferred intent/attitude would likely be at least somewhat to perhaps
significantly different).

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Intel graphics chipsets (was /firmware/radeon)
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:29:04 -0800

> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
>
>> The 01:00.0 here is where it is on the PCI bus and has nothing to do
>> with what chip it is, to be clear.
>
> Yes.  That's correct.
>
>> Your earlier messages implied the contrary.
>
> The number reported at the beginning of the line in lspci output is,
> indeed, NOT the PCI ID as I initially, in my haste to be helpful,
> stated, but rather is the bus ID in the format
> [domain:]bus:device.function.  The numeric PDI ID is, instead, the value
> you see in square brackets near the end of verbose (but not default)
> program output.
>
> And, wow, that's so entirely beside the point.
>
> I could have spent twice as long and researched every damned little
> detail (e.g., re-reading the manpage thoroughly) before posting, but I
> didn't, as I have only so much time I can justify spending on such
> things.
>
> Daniel, this is the second time in a row you've been extremely picky
> about fine details of postings where I'm working to help people, in
> situations where you've not lifted a finger at all.  Does this seem
> entirely right to you?  Because, to me, it seems quite unhelpful and a
> disincentive for me to bother helping people.  If that is your
> intention, then well done.  If that is _not_ your intention, kindly
> reassess your attitude.  Thank you.