[me] > > > Regardless of how /you/ want to perceive things, Claude, there > > > is a certain decorum in "places like this" and there is > > > absolutely nothing wrong with trying to get participants to > > > respect and follow it. [Claude] > > Regardless of how you perceive things, and I do use this forum in > > conjunction with work, there's been some nasty, intemperate, > > piling on going on here of late, and that's not just on the > > list-member we're discussing now. You complain that this stuff > > is getting in the way of work -- you're in this biz, it's a > > simple fix - send the posts from people you don't like to the > > appropriate bin, or delete them, or if you open one by accident, > > don't read it, and as a grownup, I'm sure you can think of more > > solutions. [me to Claude] Are you generally this patronising, or did I just read that incorrectly? My apologies if it was an rx problem. I'm not aware of any poster to this list that *exclusively* posts rubbish, so blocking authors ad hoc potentially loses me useful information. It's also messy and annoying to have thread after thread filled with responses to posts you don't see because the sender has been killfiled. Many, MANY threads are a complete mish-mash of useful information and dung. There is no rhyme or reason to how they go together, so there is no identifiable point in the thread's life where a killfile is appropriate. I've seen many a thread here that started well, degenerated into retardation, and then surprisingly returned to topic and eventually culminated in some great information. And of course there's that great big can of worms about starting a new thread on nearly every flipping bit of commentary delivered. Even if one were (for the sake of argument) permitted to trust that a thread always stuck to its own topic and tone in such a way that one *COULD* conceivably use thread killfiles effectively, it all goes flying out the window because every second posting gets a new subject line and didn't even have threading references embedded in the first place. Oh, nearly forgot about the issue of subject line vs content. A subject line of "update sucks" doesn't really hint very well at the UDEV discussion going on in it. Of course, a couple hours lie between my reading that and my writing this, so perhaps the subject is now "update sucks OT Jim got a haircut" and the discussion is about embedding sound in the fedora 8 LiveCD anaconda script. Author killfiles and thread killfiles are remarkably useless in this list, and if I'm the only one who believes that I'll eat my left shoe on live webcam for you to watch. There simply is no alternative but to open and scan each and every posting, and it costs a lot of time, time which isn't all that cheap. Yeah, sure, I always have the option to simply stop reading this list. But that would cost me too, wouldn't it? I repeat, these places have a decorum, and there is nothing wrong with attempting to insist that it be followed. [still Claude] > There's no excuse for some of the nastiness I've seen > > lately, as far as I'm concerned, and I shall continue to express > > myself equally forcefully on that issue. I don't wish to be > > list-cop, and never attempt to tell anyone what they can and > > can't say -- but, if someone becomes boorish, I will say so. I'm > > not defending Karl, he's shown himself quite capable of taking > > care of himself. I'm expressing my views forcefully about > > certain behavior -- I don't expect everyone to respond to my > > predilections -- but things did get a little nicer for awhile. > > > > -- > > Claude Jones > > Brunswick, MD, USA [still me to Claude] I agree that the nastiness could go away, and I apologise for any that I might have contributed. But boorish is as boorish does, and although you feel comfortable in having the high moral ground, it might be that others feel differently. Or simply don't understand. There are, after all, clearly a lot of participants here that do not have English as a first language. None of that is really relevant, though, so I'm surprised that either of us wasted time writing about it. I am, however, largely amused at your last line and thank you for a good belly laugh. It reads like Al Gore taking credit for inventing the Internet. Good one! [Les in response to Claude] > Hear! Hear! > > Anyone who works in this business will certainly know how to set up > their mail to avoid reading stuff from someone they feel is not adding > to the discussion. At least if they are good at their job. [me to Les] /raising eyebrows That reads remarkably like you're somehow making a comment on what I do and how skilled I might or might not be at it. To the best of my knowledge we haven't met, nor do you know much of anything at all about me. I'm curious as to how you feel qualified to make a statement like that, but I won't waste both our breaths asking about it. I would, though, very much embrace it if you would kindly post for me, here in this list but with an appropriate subject line of course, the procmail recipe I could use to "avoid reading stuff that I feel doesn't add to the discussion", bearing in mind the several paragraph I've written above. If you can do it, I will use it immediately and gratefully, and praise your name from every pulpit I can access. I'd also instantly offer you a job and pay you whatever it took to get you to sign. > Regards, > Les H Cheers, Andy
