Where's the "ADP/DNA" beef ?

[Larry Slack <L -dot- Slack -at- CORNELL -dot- EDU>]

OK, here's my take ( All flames cheerfully tossed into the bit-bucket - no
I don't havbe a spelling checker with my mailer, no I don't have time to
correct every spelling error with a dictionary, yes it's more importtant to
attemptt to get this point over);

(Susan Mitchell) says:
>>
>>|> >My friend mentioned something about DNA as well. What's that?

Which was responded to with;

[ clever comments that spoke to the question, digressing into (still
clever) comments that. IMHO did NOT speak to the question ], ending with;
>>|> ...Usenetters. Critters like yourself, who find it easier
>>|> to post questions like these than look in the dictionary.

To which another respondent adds;

>I tend to agree with Pete's comment - anyone who wants to work as a
>technical writer in this field must be able to look up these things!
>(What will your friend do on the job, when other new terms and concepts
>come up?)

Which is indeed a valid statement.

>(What's that quip?  Where else but Usenet can you ask a question and
>immediately get 10000 different answers?)

So, "Where's the beef," indeed?  My "beef" is that the general tone of the
response was not only (as another poster commented) "catty" but it was also
not,  ... ...  well, I guess the word is "polite" (not to mention correct
about what "DNA" meant in this particular instance). Why was it necessary
to put Susan down for a reasonable question?  If I was a new poster, and
got that kind of response to a reasonable question, I'd think twice about
posting again.

Perhaps if this had been a verbal discussion, the facial expressions and
body language would have tipped me off that the respondent was only joking.
 Maybe I wasn't reading between the lines enough.  But as a
reader/consumer, should I >have to< read between the lines to that degree?
As a communicator (verbal as well as written), I see a part of my
responsibility to communicate as clearly as possible, with "malice towards
none".

I saw the "netcrittters" response as malicious.  When I first read it last
night, I almost dashed of a scathing response to this group, but thought
better to write directly to Susan indicating my sadness at this exchange in
what has so far been, an informative and patient forum to learn and share
communications issues.

After sleeping on it, I comment to the group now, NOT as a call for a
flame-war - who has time? - But as a wish that we consider the following;
If a colleague of yours in this group should feel hesitant about posting a
question (or a response), won't that bring down the general level of
discussion/informattion flow.  Up to this incident, the items from the list
have been a pleasure to review.  I hope it stays that way.

Larry