SC would you post that OT discussion list again? Thanks ;) On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Ben Scott <mailvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr > <michealespin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the noise is far more worth than a sterile robotic forum. > > Since it seems that several people are having a hard time grasping > this concept, I will clarify: It is not the noise but the relative > fraction which I am complaining about. I agree completely that > draconian rules on permissible discussion would kill this forum, and > that friendly remarks are the essential grease in any communication. > I'm not asking for topic fascism, and would object to it if proposed. > All I am asking for is self-discipline and common courtesy. Hell, > having even *half* the traffic be on-topic would be a tremendous > improvement, given recent trends. > > > Conversation/thread-view is a *must* in forums like this. > > I keep seeing this, too. Yah, thanks guys, I was using message > threading before Microsoft had a mail client at all. That doesn't > mean I think having to delete 75% of the traffic is a good thing. > Especially when the noise is often in the same thread with the > technical discussions. > > -- Ben > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > -- Sherry Abercrombie "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
