Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: 01/09/06 24 hrs

Form arguments are useless. Only effective information is valid.
Stringing stuff together is not usually the best method, but in some
cases explanation is helpful. If you cannot justify copying the entire
body in your reply, leave the post reference instead. Archival services
will retain it anyway (Google being one), although it's obvious a
majority of the link will die over time. I could do this too, if I
search for it through Google Groups' search engine.

I cannot understand the strange attitude that pervades Usenet to argue
method rather than adapt the current of changing styles and needs into
the network operations and vice versa. It is not an unchanging monolith
but a high evolving social protocol, and to ignore the new users is
basically a suicidal pose. All it does is give the detractor more
ammunition.

Compare your needs as a user to those in the 8-bit dumb terminal world
of 1979, when they were just beginning to develop character sets for
smilies, of all things. Also that most of the basic hardware concepts
and some software ideas we use now were conceived before 1970 (many by
ONE GUY at SRI IIRC).

This is somewhat like what I think Apple originally imparted in 1977,
but sadly it got lost quickly. The idea isn't about what is better, it
is about how to exist in harmony and benefit all. It has indeed become
a pissing contest, useless in itself, and more like "my car will beat
yours on Mulholland--midnight, bring your pinks".

Usenet is of little use when this occurs.

[H]omer wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> <snip massive post>
>
> I like Roy's posts, but I don't read them all; the subject is usually
> enough for me to decide what is interesting.
>
> Conversely, a digest post requires that I read through the whole message
> to find topics of interest. This is time consuming, laborious, and not
> very helpful.
>
> I realise that there are a few (mainly Trolls) who object to Roy
> bombarding the group with such a high volume of pro-Linux/anti-Windows
> material, but it is all mainly on topic and good advocacy. I can't help
> but feel that you've succumbed to some kind of pressure to appease the
> Trolls; who in the face of overwhelming evidence of Linux's
> achievements, and Microsoft's failures; have little left to advocate
> other than personal attacks and whining about Roy's methods. The ghost
> town that was c.o.m-w.advocacy is evidence enough of that.
>
> This is an unmoderated group, and I'm no Net cop (just expressing an
> opinion), but huge posts like yours are considered bad netiquette, and
> at least should be tagged with the [LONG] flag. Digest posts work for
> mailing lists only, and are frankly not really appropriate for Usenet.
>
> Now in defence of the antagonists:
>
> Personally I would much rather that messages on this list comprised
> mainly of first-hand opinion, rather than news items regurgitated
> verbatim. As some have already suggested, sometimes it does look like
> Roy has simply plugged an RSS feed into a local INN server. Now we all
> quote from websites, and Roy does usually draw a brief conclusion to
> each article, but I agree that the format can be objectionable, even if
> I do agree with most of its contents.
>
> Looking back at how this group used to be before Roy's appearance, there
> are proportionately far fewer Troll posts now, and frankly I'd rather
> see a thousand of his messages than even one from idiots like
> Jean-Francois Mezei or Gary M. Stewart. Maybe he has taken a
> sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it works, and that's good enough for me.
>
> --
> K.
> http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
> This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
>
> Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
>  14:10:33 up 76 days, 14:27,  5 users,  load average: 0.69, 0.75, 0.73


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index