On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:58:01 -0700 (Subject: Gump Spam (was Re: Who decides who is 'worthy' for Planet Apache?)) Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
> > I, for one, posted that Gump should be removed. I believe several others > > chimed in with the same sentiment. So, Thom wasn't alone in his > assessment > > in the situation. And, as to whether non-ASF content should be blogged, > > there was discussion about that on the Planet - and the consensus I saw > was > > that we are interested in the person not their ASF activities. -- justin > I think what caused me most surprise was that I missed the whole darn 'Shut > The Gump Up' conversation. If I'd known Gump was pissing folks off so much > I'd've pulled it myself (as I did that day when it was producing HTML w/ an > open table tag.) What is somewhat amusing is that Gump was pulled for > verbosity (and/or boringness) from conversations on a page that I've already > stopped reading due to it's verbosity/noise... I think it that Gump has a very weak "Van der Waals force" (^_^). Maybe it is due to the fact that the messages (naggings) from Jakarta Gump would never influence (be influenced) to/by the other subscribers' opinions/participations. I'm plus one to opins from Justin/Thom etc. However, do not be afraid. Perhaps you can create *new* "second planet" for gumpy etc. (Before that, I'd like to see "Adam's blog", by the way :) I do/did not think it that Gumpy naggings are/were noisy, however, you might have to think of the weak "Van der Waals force" / "Gravity force" with the other subscribers. Cheers. -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
