<on-soap-box>
Let's not forget that (a) we are all human and we should enjoy being so. Do
not act like the computers you program, responding to a specific set of
rules. Our diversity and imagination are our strengths. (b) A little
humility and forgiveness does a soul good. It matters little if some twerp
posts some Microsoft rant or some blatant self-promotion here. What matters
is your reaction. Like market economics, those ideas that have merit will
generate enthusiasm; those that do not will simply disappear from lack of
interest. (c) Let's not abandon our collective sense of humor! I very
much appreciate a bon mot every now and then on what is otherwise a very dry
thread.
And Pier threatened to 86 me from the list over my .NET vs Java
analysis/supposition and I thought he over-reacted. But I joined the thread
late and it probably should not gone on as long as it did (train wreck in
Baltimore fried our Internet backbone fiber optic, so I had 500 messages
when I finally got back online) and he was no doubt getting pretty annoyed
by that time.
Anyway, we are all doing this because it's fun, right (and we make a
shit-load of money doing it)? Keep some perspective here. I've been on
this list (off-and-on) for over 2 years and I think it remains the best.
</on-soap-bax>
Cheers!
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milt Epstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:55 PM
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Mike Abney wrote:
>
> > The main reason people think [off-topic] or [OT] is a good idea is
> > not to announce that they are doing something inappropriate. It's to
> > be considerate of those who do not ever wish to see off-topic
> > posts. A simple subject filter for everything containing [OT] or
> > [off-topic] enables people to group them or delete them
> > automatically.
> >
> > As for why or whether any off-topic posts are appropriate... Those
> > who do it with the subject flag generally feel that they are posting
> > something important or relevant to the list, but not necessarily
> > 100% on the topic of the list. Those who do not use the flag either
> > do not know any better or think that this is the correct forum --
> > the latter being in need of some serious netiquette schooling. The
>
> There are a few problems with this.
>
> First of all, the list policy is no off-topic posts, so no one should
> be posting them in the first place, labelled or not.
>
> Now, as you somewhat allude, whether something is off-topic is not
> really a binary question (e.g. yes or no), but more a continuous
> function (e.g. what percentage it relates to the core topic). So
> "off-topic" isn't so easy to define (and that's probably why it's not
> spelled out more specifically in the list policy). But something
> needn't be "100% on the topic" to be relevant and appropriate -- I
> don't think anyone has tried to say that (even if it were possible to
> define things that precisely). People accept things up to a certain
> distance away, say, for example, 75%. So for those relevant things,
> no "[Off-Topic]" labelling is necessary, because, really, it's *NOT*
> off-topic.
>
> Further, this leads to problems with the idea of using "[Off-Topic]"
> labellings to filter on. What specific people are interested in won't
> necessarily match-up 100% with the core topic, or even with how close
> something is to the core topic. What would be much more effective for
> filtering purposes is a descriptive subject line. Then someone can
> decide based on that whether to filter, not on how close something is
> to the core topic or someone else's opinion of whether it's off-topic.
>
> > current MS vs. Java threads are great examples of threads that
> > should have their subjects flagged, but also *do* deserve mention on
> > this list -- and all Java-related lists. This thread is another good
>
> OK, it was mentioned. I don't think anyone got upset at its mention,
> or for the first few responses after that. It's when things got more
> dragged out that people (including Pier) called for a stop to it.
>
> > example -- it's about the list, but not as Nic put it, "helping our
> > understanding of servlets." On most mailing lists I have subscribed
> > to in the last 5 of my 10 or so years of mailing list experience
> > that is absolutely fine so that is my "default setting," so to
> > speak. If the list owner thinks that is not adequate, that's his/her
> > prerogative and should be placed prominently in a list FAQ. (Note
> > that the "policy and guidelines" for this list mention looking for
> > other, more appropriate, lists for off-topic posts but does not
> > mention any overall policy on off-topic posting. Yes, you do need to
> > be that specific to avoid problems -- at least with people who are
> > used to lists with a more lenient policy.)
> >
> > FWIW, now that I know Pier considers even limited off-topic posting
> > a Very Bad Thing, worthy of mailing-list capital punishment, this is
> > my last off-topic post to this list.
> [ ... ]
>
> Perhaps the list policy could do with some more specifics, but that
> isn't exactly the easiest or most fun thing to do. Hopefully, most
> everyone here will act professional and not abuse the list (which is
> much of what the policy is really about anyway).
>
> As to removing people from the list, that's not an easy question, and
> I'm glad I don't have to worry about it. I don't think Pier had
> removed anyone prior to this incident, so I don't think you can say
> he's been too strict. The list has had its good time and bad times,
> and perhaps removing some people occasionally will help serve the
> purpose of keeping the list basically on topic.
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Milt Epstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 9:42 AM
> >
> > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Thompson, Willard (GTICCC) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with this considering the monumental decisions that will
> > > > effect the technology community, this fall. Just put/include
> > > > [off-topic] in the subject. Also, threads like this would fade out
> > > > anyway.
> > >
> > > I don't see why people think putting [Off-Topic] in the subject line
> > > makes it OK to post something off-topic. Do you really think that
> > > announcing you're about to do something inappropriate makes it any
> > > less inappropriate? (As if that couldn't be determined often from the
> > > subject anyway.)
> > >
> > > I also agree with Nic (and Pier, who is the list manager, so I don't
> > > see why people don't listen to what he says) that we've had enough of
> > > this topic. Even if you take a lenient policy and allow a little bit
> > > of information posting and discussion on it, we've already had that,
> > > and it's time to move on. Anyone who wants to discuss it further
> > > should do so amongst themselves, and/or find and/or create a more
> > > appropriate place to discuss it.
>
> Milt Epstein
> Research Programmer
> Software/Systems Development Group
> Computing and Communications Services Office (CCSO)
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
