| 1 |
Bob Young wrote: |
| 2 |
> Joe Menola wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Saturday 30 September 2006 3:38 pm, Bob Young wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> Uhhhh.....if you have some desire to discuss the "original topic" is |
| 6 |
>>> there something that prevents you from either replying to a message |
| 7 |
>>> without the OT warning in the subject line, or posting a new message |
| 8 |
>>> with a subject indicating what you want to talk about? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Uhhh, no there isn't. Nor is there anything preventing someone from |
| 12 |
>> attaching a reply to your rambling. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> Are you suggesting there should be something? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It sounds like your a fan of censorship and prefer rules to always be |
| 17 |
> strictly enforced with zero tolerance for any deviation. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> This thread was high-jacked, and now the burden should move to those |
| 20 |
>> who post according the rules? |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> Actually a more accurate description might be that it was forked, as |
| 23 |
> the subject line was modified differentiating it from the original, |
| 24 |
> and there was certainly nothing to prevent anyone from replying to the |
| 25 |
> original message/thread and carrying on with a discussion of the |
| 26 |
> original topic. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> I'm finished contributing to the mess...feel free to break the rules, |
| 29 |
>> I'll work around it. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
> Sorry, I just honestly don't see the any cause of major inconvenience |
| 32 |
> or damage (aka "mess") here. I'm sure that there must be examples of |
| 33 |
> threads that were completely "on topic" but you personally were not |
| 34 |
> interested in, obviously you dealt with those threads in some fashion. |
| 35 |
> Why is it so difficult to deal with the occasional OT thread the same |
| 36 |
> way, especially when it's clearly marked? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> It's not like the list is overrun with OT threads, nor do I see any |
| 39 |
> indication that the list is likely to be overrun with OT messages in |
| 40 |
> the future. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
There is no major problem. It's that I (for example) just lost my |
| 45 |
interest in the "slaveryware drift" some time ago and now I find it |
| 46 |
annoying to see "there are 3 new messages in AMD64" and to discover they |
| 47 |
are "oh..in that thread again". So I mark the thread as read and resume |
| 48 |
with previous occupation. If I had a simple way to ignore the thread and |
| 49 |
check it at will, say once a week, it would be perfect. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Here we can see one of the advantages of the web forums over the mailing |
| 52 |
lists - in case like this the moderators in a web forum could just |
| 53 |
change the title of the thread and move it into some "chit-chat" |
| 54 |
category, dedicated for OTs. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
;-) |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives