[Inter Alia]

Originally Posted by Jurisprudent

I'm a lawyer, I don't have time to read the same question asked 20 times.


Not quite true... read up a bit more on strict liability crimes, such as statutory rape and crimes involving minors.

Welcome to the forum though. I'm only kidding with you... except for the notice thing... but that's off topic.

Indeed. But, if choosing between reading 20 repetitive topic heads (i.e. subject lines) and 20 entire threads, you'd rather read the 20 subject lines. I offer this because allowing reposts means you never have to read through 20 old threads to find your answer; you can just re-ask the question. The (low) cost of this privilege is having to read other members' repetitive 20 subject lines from time to time.



But even strict liability crimes provide us notice. We know that statutory rape is strict liability, meaning we're on notice. Strict liability goes to the requisite mens rea, not notice. It's unconstitutional for Congress to pass a criminal law, and then have people be punished for violating that statute if no one knew about the behavior being criminalized.

Ditto. Thanks for the welcome.

[Jurisprudent]

We'll leave the legal debate for another forum. I understand your point... we're talking about different things, but no matter.

Good luck with your purchase.

[Maxtor]

I am more than a little confused by a law student who does not see the value in research. You will find the most successful lawyers are the ones who do their homework.

It is worth doing the search if for no other reason than not to look foolish with a question that has been successfully answered many times over. If you start your post with "I have tried to search but I could not find the answer" then people are happy to help because it looks like you have tried to do some work on the issue too. Also, you can learn additional info that you may not have even thought to ask on related topics. And, if you are into your BMW, it is more interesting than most sites.

After 20 years in practice I have found delegation to be an excellent tool when used properly... never from the bottom up.

Good luck with your law career and welcome to the forum!

[McLuVan]

Originally Posted by mantis

^^ wow.... u like to type

+1
thats alot to read.....i dont like reading

[STE92VE]

Welcome to the forum.

It's a good thing you wrote your post while still a student because after you're a practicing attorney, your post would have cost you around $300 in billable time....

[Neema]

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

I’ve been lurking on this board for over a year now. Thanks to everyone for teaching me a lot. After I graduate this year (from law school), I hope to buy my first car – a BMW 3 series coupe. As the time gets closer, I’m sure I’ll be asking questions. Thank you in advance for the sound advice.



One thing that has bothered me is the way board members attack others for not searching before asking questions. There are several reasons NOT to search before asking a question.

First, the last time the question was answered may have been a long time ago. Thus, new information may be available, such that the answer to the question is now different. For example, a new study has been done and it says that Brand X of oil is best for BMWs. If this study had not been done the last time someone asked, “What oil is best for my BMW?” then current inquirers wouldn’t have this new information if they only relied on old threads. Similarly, there are constantly new members with new opinions joining the board. Why should I limit myself to old posts that have fewer board members participating? It makes sense to ask the same question to new people.

It is up to the reader to check the dates of the given posts in order to validate the reliability for their given questions. When a new “What oil is best for my BMW?” thread is created at the rate of one per week, it sort of eliminates the possibility of out dated information. Doesn’t it?

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

When US presidential elections occur, we ask each candidate what he or she thinks about immigration and health care, although these topics have been thoroughly discussed before. Why should it be otherwise on this board?

This analogy is a bit difficult to generally imply over our forum. Your analogy would be similar to a thread such as “Does iDrive make that big of a difference?“ Or, “Are PROcede gains worthwhile?”
Or other more intricate questions that are more involving and require substantially complex answers, when compared to a “What color?” thread.

Threads asking questions like “What color should I get?” Or, “ M3 vs. 335i?” are the threads that fit the criteria for being deemed a re-post, or for being useless and angering members. They either require answers that are related to a person’s personal tastes and preferences, such as the color decision. Or, require answers that consist of hard facts and evidence that will not change and are set in stone, such as the M3 vs. the 335i comparison threads.

The point trying to be made here is that the importance of a thread and question are what set it apart from being either redundant and annoying, or useful in the sense that new information may now be presented, given that the question was originally asked at a much earlier point in time.

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

Second, searching is inefficient. There may be 20 different posts about the question I have. I’m a law student, and I don’t have the time to sift through 20 different posts. This is particularly true because many members post unrelated material in the threads, making it even harder to find the information I’m looking for. Why should I go through all of this extra reading when I can just re-ask the question, which then gives me new answers and/or allows a knowledgeable member to link me to the best of the prior 20 threads addressing my question?

The words you have chosen for a given search must have either been insufficient, or not specific enough. This comes down to the methods used for a search. For example, trying several different words and in different combinations, and also using Google. Google will find posts on E90post just as well as, if not better then, E90post itself. So I advise people to search using Google as well. I personally only look at threads that are either directly related to my question, or sift through ones that would be very closely related. Example: my question is “Which oil is best?” If I fail to find a thread that pertains to exactly my question, then I’ll try a thread about engine oil in general, or oil temps, or how to change your oil.

If all else fails, then I’d advise using a chat thread. And only if that fails, do I advocate the creation of an entirely new thread asking a given question. Everything mentioned above should only take but a few minutes to complete; 5 at the most.

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

Third, re-asking a question does not impose a high cost on anyone. I know some of you get annoyed, but objectively, some of your reactions are overboard. If the topic header says, “How Often Should I Change My Oil?” then don’t open it. You know the topic has been beaten to death (see, e.g., the icon of the horse being beaten), so why waste your time opening it, reading it, and then sarcastically responding to it? You could have just skipped over it after reading the title and continued to browse topics that interest you. You made the choice to waste your own time by engaging the poster.

Again, this relates to the importance of the question being asked. Something as personal and simple as, “What color?” Or as intricate as “ PROcede data log files, need help.”

It is frustrating to see the forum polluted with an otherwise very simple question to answer. Questions that could have been easily answered by performing a simple search. Providing comments such as “Search,” or “Re-post,” are ways to instill a negative connotation with asking silly and simple questions. For every one person that realizes they should have done a search, is one less unnecessary thread that need not be created.

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

Fourth, new members may not know they can search through old topics. As is the case in criminal law, you can’t punish someone for something they’re not on notice of.

Ignorance of the law does not provide a viable excuse for which to defeat it. What happened to that? The “search” feature is located in bold at the top of the page.

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

I dislike the idea of having my first post be “controversial.” But I also dislike the idea of my first post merely introducing myself. You’ve all offered me some information, so I’ll try to do the same in the form of a thought out opinion.

Thanks for reading

Not controversial at all my friend. Rather interesting, if you’d ask me. I enjoy your points of view and reference. Welcome aboard

[VP Electricity]

So you choose to go to law school, so I should then choose to subsidize your activities by answering questions you are curious about? I should choose to make your life more efficient?

I think attacks are different from criticism. If you ask me to help you but you won't do any work to help yourself, I get to criticize your choice if I want to.

In my history on other boards for other cars (Acurazine, Bimmerfest, Bimmerforums, X5World) I particularly like answering the question AND criticizing the lazy questioner. Then I get to help others (usually lurkers like yourself) and criticize people who think the world should help them. It's a win-win!

Logic like yours pervades the legal profession. My company's counsels persist in telling me how I should handle my job, rather than doing their research. I see a parallel.

The way I look at it, free help never looks the way I want it to...

Thanks for a well-written post, though.
________
S1
________
MistressSonia
________
Live Sex

[Fraxum]

#1 reason to search first. Learn from history. See what trouble it got our country into?

[ianbiz]

cliffs?

[Pimp Star]

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

I’ve been lurking on this board for over a year now. Thanks to everyone for teaching me a lot. After I graduate this year (from law school), I hope to buy my first car – a BMW 3 series coupe. As the time gets closer, I’m sure I’ll be asking questions. Thank you in advance for the sound advice.



One thing that has bothered me is the way board members attack others for not searching before asking questions. There are several reasons NOT to search before asking a question.

First, the last time the question was answered may have been a long time ago. Thus, new information may be available, such that the answer to the question is now different. For example, a new study has been done and it says that Brand X of oil is best for BMWs. If this study had not been done the last time someone asked, “What oil is best for my BMW?” then current inquirers wouldn’t have this new information if they only relied on old threads. Similarly, there are constantly new members with new opinions joining the board. Why should I limit myself to old posts that have fewer board members participating? It makes sense to ask the same question to new people. When US presidential elections occur, we ask each candidate what he or she thinks about immigration and health care, although these topics have been thoroughly discussed before. Why should it be otherwise on this board?

Second, searching is inefficient. There may be 20 different posts about the question I have. I’m a law student, and I don’t have the time to sift through 20 different posts. This is particularly true because many members post unrelated material in the threads, making it even harder to find the information I’m looking for. Why should I go through all of this extra reading when I can just re-ask the question, which then gives me new answers and/or allows a knowledgeable member to link me to the best of the prior 20 threads addressing my question?

Third, re-asking a question does not impose a high cost on anyone. I know some of you get annoyed, but objectively, some of your reactions are overboard. If the topic header says, “How Often Should I Change My Oil?” then don’t open it. You know the topic has been beaten to death (see, e.g., the icon of the horse being beaten), so why waste your time opening it, reading it, and then sarcastically responding to it? You could have just skipped over it after reading the title and continued to browse topics that interest you. You made the choice to waste your own time by engaging the poster.

Fourth, new members may not know they can search through old topics. As is the case in criminal law, you can’t punish someone for something they’re not on notice of.

I dislike the idea of having my first post be “controversial.” But I also dislike the idea of my first post merely introducing myself. You’ve all offered me some information, so I’ll try to do the same in the form of a thought out opinion.

Thanks for reading.

I am Human being. I do not have time to read 7 paragraphs of writing.







P.S.: I agree with you; if there already is an answer to the question just retype the answer or leave the thread.
P.S.S.: Welcome aboard :-)

[Bulldog 6]

As you get more experience searching actually works better then a new post, especially for DIY's. They are very detailed and people stop adding new posts once the info is out there.

[shipill]

nice argumentative essay!

[Inter Alia]

Tofu,

Well said. You make good points. I don't think things will work out the way I described. My post was only meant to express why I think not searching first isn't a huge sin. I never thought my post would persuade people to not get annoyed by it. At most, I hoped to spark an interesting debate, which appears to have happened. Although, now that my post has been moved, this thread will probably die.

[Inter Alia]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I am more than a little confused by a law student who does not see the value in research.

I do see a great deal of value in research. My appreciation for research is the reason I've been lurking on this board for over a year--learning about BMWs in the hopes of purchasing one once I graduate. Also, the reason I don't have the time to read through 20 old threads all the time is because I'm busy researching something related to the law. Maybe I should spend more time learning about BMWs and less on federal courts' jurisdiction.

The point is, I believe in efficient research. It's not the case that I want to do no research. I feel I can get the same info from re-asking a question as I can from reading old posts, but in a shorter amount of time. I'll either get a concise, simple answer to my question, or hopefully, I'll be directed to the most informative and authoritative prior thread concerning my topic. All this while spending less time.

I may be wrong about acquiring just as much info from a re-ask. If I feel that is the case, I'll either explicitly ask for a link to the best prior thread or I'll search for old posts (which I do often, just not all the time).

Thanks for the response.

[BMWE90]

Let's see how many reasons we can come up with for NOT reading this thread.

But yeah, I dont really mind people asking questions but there comes a point where a question has been asked like 10 times in the week before. Then comes a noob and he/she asks the same question AGAIN. It really depends on my mood but sometimes it gets frustrated having to answer the same question over and over. At those times I wish they would just search for the answer.

[Inter Alia]

Originally Posted by Boost_Nation

It is up to the reader to check the dates of the given posts in order to validate the reliability for their given questions.

The reader has this duty, but if the reader is uninformed (i.e. the reader is asking the question about the oil precisely because he doesn't know there is a new report on BMW oil), then how can we expect him to "validate the reliability" of the information in the old thread? His ignorance is the reason he can't validate the information, and is the cause of him asking the question in the first place. But by relying on members today (i.e. re-posting the same question), he can then be sure he is getting the most current info available.

Originally Posted by Boost_Nation

When a new “What oil is best for my BMW?” thread is created at the rate of one per week, it sort of eliminates the possibility of out dated information. Doesn’t it?

No, it does not eliminate the possibility of discovering new information. Sure, it lessens the likelihood of new information being available, but it does not reduce that probability to zero. Plus, there are other reasons I listed not to search, including the fact that with the passage of time (yes, even one day), there are new members with new opinions and new information. I sympathize with your fundamental premise though, namely, that the increased frequency of re-posts (if they are daily, or ultra-frequent) decreases their "worth."

Originally Posted by Boost_Nation

The point trying to be made here is that the importance of a thread and question are what set it apart from being either redundant and annoying, or useful in the sense that new information may now be presented, given that the question was originally asked at a much earlier point in time.

You make a fair distinction between posts like "what color" and more serious, complex questions. Personally, I'm not sure why someone would ask such a subjective question as "what color should my car be," when (i) the poster doesn't know the repliers (i.e. for all the poster knows, you and I have horrible tastes (aside from the general love of BMWs)) and (ii) the poster, not the repliers, will be driving the vehicle. Let me think more on this point before responding further.

Originally Posted by Boost_Nation

The words you have chosen for a given search must have either been insufficient, or not specific enough. This comes down to the methods used for a search.

Not necessarily. I am not saying I always find nothing in my searches. Neither am I saying I always get 20 or more hits. The problem, sometimes, is that I find too many threads, all of which directly address my precise topic. This is not always the case. Maybe I find one or two threads. Then I'll read them and not re-post. But if I get 20 threads back, and they are all on point, I'd rather re-post than sift through pages and pages of responses. I will try Google as you recommended. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Boost_Nation

Ignorance of the law does not provide a viable excuse for which to defeat it. What happened to that? The “search” feature is located in bold at the top of the page.

Indeed. But I'm drawing a distinction between lack of notice and ignorance of the law. Lack of notice essentially means the general public is not informed of the law (i.e. the general public does not know that certain behavior is now criminalized). On the other hand, ignorance of the law means a single individual, the specific defendant, is claiming not to know the law, while everyone else does. My point is that maybe newbies are not given sufficient notice of the search function, such that newbies as a class don't know the search function is available. You point out that it's in bold at the top of the page. Maybe that is enough notice. I'll take a look.

Originally Posted by Boost_Nation

Not controversial at all my friend. Rather interesting, if you’d ask me. I enjoy your points of view and reference. Welcome aboard

Ditto. Thanks for the warm welcome.

[Inter Alia]

Originally Posted by VP Electricity

So you choose to go to law school, so I should then choose to subsidize your activities by answering questions you are curious about? I should choose to make your life more efficient?

You don't have to do anything. I didn't say veteran posters should respond each time a newbie re-asks a question. Rather, I'm making the argument that maybe people shouldn't get pissed, or, at least understand that sometimes it makes sense to re-ask a question. In any event, the hope is that re-asking benefits everyone, because if you ever re-post, others will answer your question instead of only yelling at you.

Originally Posted by VP Electricity

If you ask me to help you but you won't do any work to help yourself, I get to criticize your choice if I want to.

Agreed. That said, I would probably still do a search first and re-ask depending on the results of my search. If only one or two threads came back, I'd read. But at some point, if too many hits returned, I'd simply re-ask rather than sift through endless pages. The point is, I'm still doing some work. And even if I'm not, it's a "you scratch my back now, and I'll scratch yours later" situation (i.e. you let me re-ask now, and when you re-ask, I'll answer instead of only yelling at you).

Originally Posted by VP Electricity

Logic like yours pervades the legal profession. My company's counsels persist in telling me how I should handle my job, rather than doing their research. I see a parallel.

IMHO, I think you're mischaracterizing my argument. I'm doing a cost/benefit analysis, and in my opinion, not searching is sometimes more efficient (i.e. it provides the same info, or even more in some cases, in much less time) than reading all old threads. It's not that I'm too lazy to do my own work; I'm merely trying to do my work more efficiently.

Thanks for the response.

[Inter Alia]

I appreciate everyone else's jokes. Thanks for the warm welcome.

[STE92VE]

Interesting point of information....

Since this thread was moved to the Off-Topic Discussions Board, technically you have 0 (zero) posts......if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear the squirrel that was crushed to death scream, is the squirrel really dead?

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

I definitely know what owned means. I just didn't know it could be spelled that way. Thanks for dropping knowledge.

Thats cool, only l33t hack3rs really know what it means

Inter Alia, with as much as you have posted in this thread I highly doubt you are too busy to search and read through 20 threads... and let's leave the cost/benefit analysis to the mathematicians.

Welcome to the forum btw.

[Lassaxi]

Welcome to the forum! I appreciate your thoughtful attempt to discuss this issue rationally. Here are my comments:

Originally Posted by Inter Alia

First, the last time the question was answered may have been a long time ago. Thus, new information may be available, such that the answer to the question is now different. For example, a new study has been done and it says that Brand X of oil is best for BMWs. If this study had not been done the last time someone asked, “What oil is best for my BMW?” then current inquirers wouldn’t have this new information if they only relied on old threads. Similarly, there are constantly new members with new opinions joining the board. Why should I limit myself to old posts that have fewer board members participating? It makes sense to ask the same question to new people. When US presidential elections occur, we ask each candidate what he or she thinks about immigration and health care, although these topics have been thoroughly discussed before. Why should it be otherwise on this board?

This is a fair point, but if what you're really looking for is new information, you should say so in your post. In other words, "Has anyone seen any new information about the best oil change interval for my E90 since December?" is a much better question than "When should I change my oil?" The first question demonstrates that you did some reasearch, and are looking for thoughtful follow-up. The second question demonstrates laziness and ignorance, and people will jump on you for it.

Second, searching is inefficient. There may be 20 different posts about the question I have. I’m a law student, and I don’t have the time to sift through 20 different posts. This is particularly true because many members post unrelated material in the threads, making it even harder to find the information I’m looking for. Why should I go through all of this extra reading when I can just re-ask the question, which then gives me new answers and/or allows a knowledgeable member to link me to the best of the prior 20 threads addressing my question?

This is exactly the type of laziness that others take issue with. Basically, you want to be a free rider. There's nothing wrong with lurking and sucking up the wisdom of others, but neither is there anyting wrong with expecting new members to put in a modest emount of effort before posting. Searching is inefficient- no one will seriously disagree with you. But it is the price of admission. You're not billing anyone by the hour to search this forum, so many people (including me) expect you to put in some basic effort.

Let me ask you this: in law school, do you read the cases, brief them, and outline your classes? Or do you just skip the classes, read Nutshells, and expect your study group to tell you everything you need to know for the exam?

Third, re-asking a question does not impose a high cost on anyone. I know some of you get annoyed, but objectively, some of your reactions are overboard. If the topic header says, “How Often Should I Change My Oil?” then don’t open it. You know the topic has been beaten to death (see, e.g., the icon of the horse being beaten), so why waste your time opening it, reading it, and then sarcastically responding to it? You could have just skipped over it after reading the title and continued to browse topics that interest you. You made the choice to waste your own time by engaging the poster.

The answer to this one is pretty obvious. When you ask a question, you want a response from the best, most reliable posters on this forum. That's how you get high-quality information. Those are often the very posters who get annoyed by laziness because they invest lots of their own time and knowledge helping others out. As more and more people abuse the repost, those users with high-quality information become annoyed, and are reluctant to answer. That hurts everyone, because it contributes to the spread of lower-quality information.

Fourth, new members may not know they can search through old topics. As is the case in criminal law, you can’t punish someone for something they’re not on notice of.

Not true - ignorance of the law does not excuse compliance with it. On this forum, as in civil society, the norms and conventions can be easily ascertained by observation and basic research. The fact that there is no disclaimer on this forum notifying users that they'll get jumped on if they repost questions does not make the practice acceptable, nor does it make those who do the jumping wrong. If you ask a question that has been beaten to death (actus reus) either knowing the question has been beaten to death (willfulness), consciously disregarding the substantial likelihood that it has been beaten to death (recklessness), or failing to realize that that an objective participant in this forum would think it has been beaten to death (negligence), you've got the mens rea. After that, you're fair game.

[flukey]

honestly...

my viewpoint is... if someone knows where the information is, why do they post "search" instead of a link to the information or the actual information itself?

most likely the time it takes to post "go search the boards" would take just as long to provide the requested information