[OT]Re: [oclug]Port 4662

[Raymond Wood]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 12:54:46PM -0500, Paul Faure remarked:
> Jon Earle (je_oclug at kronos.honk.org) wrote:
> > So, filter them out if you don't want to see them.  I
> > utterly fail to understand why this is even an issue when a
> > solution for your needs has been repeatedly mentioned.
> > 
> > will do exactly what you want.  I agree with Shad - it would
> > a shame to unsub simply due to a few OT discussions from
> > time to time.

> Thats like saying "Don't clean the house, just sweep all the
> trash under the carpet" :)

Actually it is nothing like that at all.  Argument by analogy
(although I myself enjoy it as much as anyone) is notoriously
subject to abuse.  Think about it.

> My concern is that people go on long rants and flame wars
> about OT subjects, and don't read/reply to the important
> technical issues.  

In my experience technical issues posted to this mailing list
get swift and competent replies almost 100% of the time.

> What would happen if the list changes to 90% OT posts (which
> it is at right now)? The list becomes useless and
> unproductive.
> -- 
> Paul N. Faure

I don't agree.  What happens is the '[OT]' simply get filtered
to /dev/null (by those who choose to do so), and the rest of the
posts remain (mostly ;) on-topic.

IMO this 'problem' is not a problem at all.  It is actually a
no-brainer.  The only flaw in the plan is to get people to
actually label their posts as 'off-topic' in the first place, so
that they can be easily filtered.  It seems that 'the usual
suspects' have been doing remarkably well with this, in fact, as
of late.

Cheers,
Raymond
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tux.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/attachments/20030124/88658e7b/attachment.bin