On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 12:39 +0200, Andrew Kelly wrote: > [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 > You might try this link to see how a filter can be set up. http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/proctips.html#start Regards, Les H
