Martin wrote...

Its just a shame how some take that feeling to extremes and into
various strange directions for venting their personal frustration.

So tell me.  When you're evaluating someone's apparent frustration, how do
you judge whether their frustration is entirely a function of SETI problems,
or a projection of their deeper "personal frustrations?"

Should you judge?

There is also a convolution.  Let's say that from the user's perspective,
their frustration is entirely appropriate regarding whatever screwy thing is
happening -- short term or extended length -- with SETI@home.  Your replies
[which are based on your perception] that they are "taking their feelings to
extremes" serves to invalidate their feelings.

Essentially, when people are having problems, your replies can invalidate
their feelings.  It doesn't come across as "friendly."  In fact, it serves
to increase their frustration, criticizing someone for having difficulty.
Sometimes, more criticism than help.

It's a defensive posture, but there is no need to be defensive on a
newsgroup.  Even newsgroup replies from official members of the SETI
organization would be more diplomatic.

I recommend a different strategy.  Try to extract the nature of users'
[technical] problems.  If you have one to suggest, respond by suggesting a
course of action.  Proofread your response, eliminating jabs and pokes -- it
takes practice, but it makes for a more concise response.  Any further
advice should be related to the technical situation, not regarding the
progress of their psychoanalysis.

My problem is adding humorous tangents to my tech-talk.  In retrospect, they
are always tangential, but rarely humorous, and often inane.  When factual
information is the order of the day, my silly remarks only add confusion.  I
can reduce the size of my newsgroup responses by 50% by cutting out the
silly remarks.

Yet, I can still ramble on incessantly.  What to do about the other 50%...
Thanks for tolerating.

-Neil-