Re: In need of c.l.p.discussion

From: Rune Steffensen (r.steffensen_at_c2i.net)
Date: 10/17/03 

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:37:29 GMT

Erik Max Francis meditated and wrote something like this:

> Rune Steffensen wrote:
>
>> Well, see above.
>> We don't need reliability: if just a couple of people in a thread
>> takes
>> responsiblity the mess would be considerably reduced.
>
> That sounds dubious. I can only imagine that on the Big Eight such a
> policy would devolve into constant crossposting between the two groups.
> There'd be no way to stop it, and trying to move a thread from one to
> the other would always result in some people crossposting to both
> (either because they don't want it moved since they don't read the other
> group or to be difficult). Without moderation there would be no way to
> enforce this, and there is no policy in place to change the moderation
> status of Big Eight groups.

Of course you are right, I've seen my part of the net. I'm not asking for
perfection, just a possibility to appeal to peoples rationality.

[snip]
> You're just in the wrong newsgroup :-).

:)

> A far better solution to your problem -- namely avoiding threads you do
> not want to see -- is to just use a killfile.

I know. But, as I said in another posting in this thread, I'm not using
python in an active way these days, even if I probably will in the
future. So the maintainance would need more work, than the delete-
strategy.

> Even really lousy newsreaders, like the one I still use
[snip]

If you think Mozilla sucks, give Opera a try. I've been using it for news
for some weeks now, and I'm very satisfied.

> Further, as other people have pointed out, what you consider
> "information" vs. "discussion" is a subjective call, just like it would
> be for everybody.

Right, but with a lot of people out there, some subjective calls will be
the same for a lot of them.

> What you're trying to do is impose your subjective wishes on a
> community.

Surely, you don't mean that? If I had tried to _impose_ anything, I
wouldn't have requested comments. And I would have changed the word
"suggest" to "demand".

> It is true that comp.lang.python has rather high traffic,
> but even fragmentation isn't going to drastically change that; if you
> subscribe to the newsgroup/mailing list, you know what you're deal with.

I didn't, but I do.
:) 

-- 
-rune
Incognito, ergo sum.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799
    ... >> practitioners, is fundamentally a con. ... > efficient way to reduce risk. ... The policy is not the security person's policy, ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • [Full-Disclosure] Just a suggestion
    ... >> moderation policy that is content-based. ... people to interpret what is content of type "a" (legimate security ... I think that some common-sense anti-abuse policies (only subscribers may ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Iran releases British sailors.
    ... Doesn't the US Navy have a peacetime "don't come closer than this to me ... Well _that_ policy cetainly worked for the USS Cole, ... There will be a 'Naval Board of Inquiry', ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Proposed Process for Charter Amendment
    ... >> that whenever someone starts a thread remotely critical of the moderation ... >> policy, it gets shut down. ... put into the Charter. ... The thread could be governed by regular Charter regulations (no ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Logging Tools
    ... Spanning Tree and PORTFAST settings on the switches, ... GPO "Always wait for the network at computer startup and logon" policy ... Start: 41.144 sec Duration: 318.123 sec ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)