On Nov 17, 2006, at 2:52 AM, Bill Arnold wrote:
>> You and I don't get to decide what is "thoughtful" and
>> what isn't for anyone but ourselves.
>
> Thoughtfulness is ancillary to the primary complaint, which is volume.
> Taken together, high volume + senseless garbage = a 'junk storm'. I
> think it's disruptive and counter-productive to go around and
> around in
> circles because a couple of morons have endless amounts of time to
> devote to making that happen.
You wouldn't be going 'around and around' if you didn't hop on the
carousel. And if others would likewise stop trying to outwit the
witless, we'd have a much better environment.
The list is self-policing. Encourage your fellow listmates to ignore
the ignoramuses.
> List quality is your call, Ed.
Wrong. It is the call of the participants. I just provide the server.
> What I'm thinking is that the list really needs
> some mechanic that can be invoked when it comes under attack. I define
> 'attack' as high volume streams of belligerent, mean-spirited,
> ignorant
> junk.
Again, it requires someone deeming that a message is belligerent,
mean-spirited and ignorant. I know exactly what messages you mean,
and I would probably characterize them similarly. But I would also
classify every message of those who reply to such crap as equally
ignorant. They're just feeding the trolls, and while they may think
that they are being clever, they're only showing how clueless they
are for providing a reason for yet another stupid reply.
> This is just a footnote because it applies only to me: I've had a
> problem with Outlook's filters (a while back I discovered that
> occasionally mail was disappearing), so I removed all filters, which
> seemed to have solved that problem, but doing so left me having to use
> the delete key instead. I have been doing this with the 'T' case, and
> now I'll do it with the 'M' case. I do not believe this will help the
> list because too often they sway conversation and elicit responses
> which
> are impossible to delete in advance.
I can't believe that email clients in 2006 can't handle simple
filtering rules. Geez, my FidoNet readers in 1990 could twit out an
address with no problem. If your email client is that lame that it
can't do such a rudimentary function, well...
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
