On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 08:43 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 16:41:49 PM -0400, Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Frans, Cord, Martin, Pascal,
> >
> > I'm writing the listmasters because reading debian-user has become
> > nearly unbearable for me (one of the sadly few DDs wh
Mark Grieveson wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted to gmane.linux.debian.user:
> I almost never make offtopic posts. I get the digest, and go through
> it for items of interest, occasionally asking for help, and sometimes
> attempting to offer assistance.
When replying to messages in the
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 00:50 -0400, Mark Grieveson wrote:
> Offtopic posts do not bother me. The idea of moderation, however, I
> feel is repulsive. So, my recommendation is to continue the list as a
> free and unmoderated list.
>
> That concludes my two cents.
>
> Mark
>
>
I agree with Mark.
I almost never make offtopic posts. I get the digest, and go through
it for items of interest, occasionally asking for help, and sometimes
attempting to offer assistance.
Offtopic posts do not bother me. The idea of moderation, however, I
feel is repulsive. So, my recommendation is to continue
On 5/22/07, Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I thought that our OT discussion was fairly polite. Vigorously
argued, but fairly civil. Certainly the people complaining weren't
flamed.
I haven't been following the longer threads, so I really couldn't say.
The code of conduct could certain
the kinds of subject matter that once made it useful.
> >
> I'd sort of be happy to get back to off topic discussions.
>
> At this point this meta-topic "rampant offtopic and offensive posts to
> debian-user" seems to be dominating list traffic.
>
> From the
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:31:58 -0400
"Michael Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's why I suggest a writen code of conduct / policy that covers OT
> > and other issues, that is then self-regulated by the users of the list.
>
> You
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Celejar wrote:
> Lots of sigs are "derogatory of another culture" - those mocking
> religion, or liberal / conservative / other political views.
It may help people to remember that another person cannot define you or
tell anyone who you are, what kind of culture you are p
On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:25:25 -0400
Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
> > I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> > thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> > a
On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:18:59 -0400
Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:31:01PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
>
> > So, then, lets say that a member of Islam has a very "provocative, but
> > very accepted in their culture, quote."
>
> I assume that you mean a
On Tue, May 22, 2007 06:08:41 AM -0400, Miles Fidelman
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> >(*) yes, the moderators, that is listmasters or whatever you want to
> >call them. I have read your objection that this is a not moderated
> >list, but it is irrelevant. My proposal was to ban
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 22:49 -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:59:01 -0400
> Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 21 May 2007, Celejar wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:02:01 +0200
> > > "M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > This
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:41 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frans, Cord, Martin, Pascal,
>
> I'm writing the listmasters because reading debian-user has become
> nearly unbearable for me (one of the sadly few DDs who bothers to read
> our user lists) due to volume and offensiveness/repetativeness of
> o
On 5/22/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's why I suggest a writen code of conduct / policy that covers OT
and other issues, that is then self-regulated by the users of the list.
You mean like http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct ?
Granted, it doesn't cover O
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 06:08:41AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> There's a legal issue here that nobody's mentioned.
>
> At least in the US, there is a growing body of law and precedent that
> says, essentially:
>
> - if you provide a list, but don't moderate traffic, you're not legally
> l
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> attacked religion unfairly. Many people use quite provocative sigs,
> ridiculing (often wittil
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:31:01PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> So, then, lets say that a member of Islam has a very "provocative, but
> very accepted in their culture, quote."
I assume that you mean as a signature. In the body of a message it
would only be appropriate if the recipient of the m
topic discussions.
At this point this meta-topic "rampant offtopic and offensive posts to
debian-user" seems to be dominating list traffic.
From the archives, as of a few minutes ago:
- total messages today (5/22): 69
- total re: "rampant offtopic and offensive posts to debian-us
On Monday 21 May 2007 22:48, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote to Marco:
> Seriously, searching the list archives for your email reveals
> that aside from pointing out to someone who posted to this
> list in Italian that this is an English-only list, pretty
> much every single message you have posted has be
On Tue, 22 May 2007 06:58:19 +0200
"M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 10:46:09 AM -0400, Celejar ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > I'll point out that the OT thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a
> > response to a sig that I felt attacked religion unfairly. Many
>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:59:01 -0400
Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 21 May 2007, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:02:01 +0200
> > "M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > This is why I'm posting also this reply to the moderators. I really
> > > h
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:15:56PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:47:38 +0200
> David Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> > > threa
M. Fioretti wrote:
(*) yes, the moderators, that is listmasters or whatever you want to
call them. I have read your objection that this is a not moderated
list, but it is irrelevant. My proposal was to ban outright your email
or IP addresses, not to hold and check each single email sent to the
li
On May 22, 7:40 am, Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I fail to understand is what difference does it make if text is
> above or below a sig delimiter? Either it is offensive or it is not. I
> and others have been blasted for supposedly offensive remarks. However,
> if you re
On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:33:53 -0400
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I fail to understand is what difference does it make if text is
> above or below a sig delimiter?
It doesn't.
> Either it is offensive or it is not.
What is offensive or isn't is entirely up to the reader.
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 06:58:19AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 10:46:09 AM -0400, Celejar ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > I'll point out that the OT thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a
> > response to a sig that I felt attacked religion unfairly. Many
> > people use qu
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:34:25AM +, s. keeling wrote:
> Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 04:31:12PM +, s. keeling wrote:
> > >
> > > No. Think about what you're saying. Sigs are a time honoured
> > > practice, and if you don't like one, hit delete an
On Mon, May 21, 2007 10:46:09 AM -0400, Celejar ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I'll point out that the OT thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a
> response to a sig that I felt attacked religion unfairly. Many
> people use quite provocative sigs, ridiculing (often wittily)
> political or religious
Gnu_Raiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Please avoid this kind of technical suggestions in this thread:
>
> >* it is still the same unacceptable "since you can buy ear plugs, I
> > can yell whenever I want" attitude. See my previous messages
>
> I think it
Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 04:31:12PM +, s. keeling wrote:
> > Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> > > attacked religion unfairly. Many people use quite provocative sigs,
>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 16:31:12 GMT
"s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> > thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> > attacked religion unfairly. Many p
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:31:01 -0400
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 08:36 +, steef wrote:
> > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > <.>
> > > As a side note I must say that I have been a member
On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:47:38 +0200
David Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > [...]
> > I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> > thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> > a
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> [...]
> I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> attacked religion unfairly. Many people use quite provocative sigs,
> ridiculing (often
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:53:44AM -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >So, let me see if I understand this. The things for which Michelle,
> >Ron, Michael, Johannes, Judd, Florian and I were criticized, because
> >they were supposedly offensive, would be OK as long as t
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
So, let me see if I understand this. The things for which Michelle,
Ron, Michael, Johannes, Judd, Florian and I were criticized, because
they were supposedly offensive, would be OK as long as they were in a
sig?
If they also honored the four-line sig netiquette, y
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 04:31:12PM +, s. keeling wrote:
> Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> > thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> > attacked religion unfairly. Many people use quit
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:51:30AM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:50:27PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:44:10PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > >
> > > It would be helpful if that code of conduct had its own page and be
> >
Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I see your point about offensiveness, but I'll point out that the OT
> thread I started (Good, evil, etc) was a response to a sig that I felt
> attacked religion unfairly. Many people use quite provocative sigs,
> ridiculing (often wittily) political or religio
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 02:22 -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
> On 05/21/2007 01:55 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Just in case you missed my initial proposal, I was suggesting a separate
> > list for OT, but still within the Debian project. This way when OT gets
> > out of hand posters could move the thre
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 08:36 +, steef wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > <.>
> > As a side note I must say that I have been a member of a volunteer
> > organization for 11 years and I have seen a bit of the dynamic inv
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:51:17PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrei Popescu) writes:
>
> > IMHO forcing people to take off-topic discussions out of the forum
> > (read Debian community) is not good. Debian is based on volunteers
> > and for some contributors (yes, answering que
On Monday 21 May 2007, Celejar wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:02:01 +0200
> "M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > This is why I'm posting also this reply to the moderators. I really
> > hope they put a stop to this, this time.
>
> As people have pointed out; this is exactly the
On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:02:01 +0200
"M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> This is why I'm posting also this reply to the moderators. I really
> hope they put a stop to this, this time.
As people have pointed out; this is exactly the issue. There *are no*
moderators! d-u is (currently)
On Sat, 19 May 2007 08:44:09 -0400
Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:11:37PM -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
>
> > However, I do think it would be good to add language to the description
> > of the mailing list that suggests that people take off-topic
> > conv
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrei Popescu) writes:
> IMHO forcing people to take off-topic discussions out of the forum
> (read Debian community) is not good. Debian is based on volunteers
> and for some contributors (yes, answering questions is also a way of
> contributing, so you - the DDs - don't have
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:50:27PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:44:10PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> >
> > It would be helpful if that code of conduct had its own page and be
> > enumerated so that it could be referred to directly when we try to
> > self-
On 05/21/2007 01:55 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:19:12AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
If the volume of messages in an off-topic thread is large enough that
an entire separate list is being considered, the off-top
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
<.>
As a side note I must say that I have been a member of a volunteer
organization for 11 years and I have seen a bit of the dynamic involved
in such a group. The best "contributors" were mostly the
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Joey is, I believe, referring to a healthy level of off-topic
> discussions on *any* list, not to creating a specific area for
> "off-topic" messages. For the messages to be "social lubricant", they
> need to be *interspersed* with the
On Mon, May 21, 2007 09:55:22 AM +0300, Andrei Popescu
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> By forum I meant whole Debian, not this list (should have put some
> quotes around).
>
> > Of course. How can you ask such a ridiculous question? Please think a
> > bit more before posting. First of all, going by
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:19:12AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > If the volume of messages in an off-topic thread is large enough that
> > > an entire separate list is being considered, the off-topic diversion
> > > is already beyo
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:59:15PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:43:45PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> > Agreed. It may be a good idea to add to the mailing lists code of
> > conduct a couple of extra lines:
> >
> > A lot of questions asked on debian-user
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:44:10PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>
> It would be helpful if that code of conduct had its own page and be
> enumerated so that it could be referred to directly when we try to
> self-regulate. Eg: "Yoh WhatsYourName, this topic, while interesting in
> a general s
On Sun, May 20, 2007 22:15:34 PM +0300, Andrei Popescu
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > If the volume of messages in an off-topic thread is large enough that
> > an entire separate list is being considered, the off-topic diversion
> > is
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> Joey is, I believe, referring to a healthy level of off-topic
> >> discussions on *any* list, not to creating a specific area for
> >> "off-topic" messages. For
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 May 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > > It would be helpful if that code of conduct had its own page and
> > > be enumerated so that it could be referred to directly
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:34:50PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
>
> > This type of guideline means a whole heck of a lot more than large
> > sweeping corrections. Plus, we do need someone to thwack the
> > responder(s) from time
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:34:50PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> This type of guideline means a whole heck of a lot more than large
> sweeping corrections. Plus, we do need someone to thwack the
> responder(s) from time to time. Many could do this, specifically and
> privately over private e-mail.
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Joey is, I believe, referring to a healthy level of off-topic
discussions on *any* list, not to creating a specific area for
"off-topic" messages. For the messages to be "social lubricant", they
need to be *in
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 20 May 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>
> > It would be helpful if that code of conduct had its own page and be
> > enumerated so that it could be referred to directly when we try to
> > self-regulate. Eg: "Yoh WhatsYourNa
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > This particular problem is solved for the most part by a policy
> > change that says non-Debian topics are inappropriate. This opens
> > the door to various actions starting with "thi
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:49:14 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:15:53PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at
On 05/20/2007 01:44 PM, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
[...]
I propose we add a clause to the code of conduct to address the OT
issue. This half of the problem is generally followed but it should be
part of policy. The following wording is a starting point for discussion:
Discussions whic
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:57:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Joey is, I believe, referring to a healthy level of off-topic
> discussions on *any* list, not to creating a specific area for
> "off-topic" messages. For the messages to be "social lubricant", they
> need to be *interspersed* with the
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:43:45PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Agreed. It may be a good idea to add to the mailing lists code of
> conduct a couple of extra lines:
>
> A lot of questions asked on debian-user and debian-devel are asked
> regularly. Please consider searching using an Inter
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> This particular problem is solved for the most part by a policy change
> that says non-Debian topics are inappropriate. This opens the door to
> various actions starting with "this is not appropriate, please stop" in
> the event that f
On 18-May-07, 15:41 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frans, Cord, Martin, Pascal,
>
> I'm writing the listmasters because reading debian-user has become
> nearly unbearable for me (one of the sadly few DDs who bothers to read
> our user lists) due to volume and offensiveness/repetati
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:17:16PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > > > Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for "ba
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:43:08PM +, Tyler Smith wrote:
>
> I think you missed Amy's point. It's great that there are
> technical solutions to the OT problem. However, if we take that as
> license to continue posting messages that are far, far removed from
> the world of Debian, we are going
On 18.05.07 23:59, Mark Grieveson wrote:
> Between those who post OT threads, and those who whine about the OT
> threads, it's hard to say what's more annoying.
I understand those tho whine. I don't understand those who are OT.
> PS, I'm pretty excited about the Ottawa Senators/Buffalo Sabres ga
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:49:14 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:15:53PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 19:57:49 -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:49:14 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:15:53PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 19:57:49 -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > That said, there do seem to be a fair number of self-indulgent,
> > > self-im
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:15:53PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 19:57:49 -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > That said, there do seem to be a fair number of self-indulgent,
> > self-important, opinionated pundits using this list for their own,
> > irrelevant pr
* Amy Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 01:04:15 -0400]:
> Hoping for a resolution without bloodshed,
Hear,here.
Regards,
Klein.
--
They also surf who only stand on waves
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
k - led to 122 responses
- a topic labelled "Affecting Institutional Change (Yeah Right)" -
asking a legitimate question seeking backup for convincing people not to
email MSWord documents in a college setting - led to 90 replies, about
half on topic and about half labeled OT
- and now we hav
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 19:57:49 -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
[...]
> That said, there do seem to be a fair number of self-indulgent,
> self-important, opinionated pundits using this list for their own,
> irrelevant proselytizing of one view or another. But I only know that
> because, on occasi
2007/5/18, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Frans, Cord, Martin, Pascal,
I'm writing the listmasters because reading debian-user has become
nearly unbearable for me (one of the sadly few DDs who bothers to read
our user lists) due to volume and offensiveness/repetativeness of
offtopic posts there
Mumia W.. wrote:
[...]
> I think that it's best to state a policy against off-topic posts, but
> any enforcement is not a good idea.
> [...]
This sounds very sensible. Start at the root of the problem and have a stated
policy so that everyone knows where they are. Without a policy, there will
alw
On 05/19/2007 10:16 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
[...]
OK. Let's recap:
- Amy asked: "If somebody's current provider provides only POP, should
they be forced to switch to another provider just for the privilege
of being on this list?"
- I pointed out that [...]
Amy asked a rhetorical
Hi all,
I really, honestly think this thread has gone on quite long
enough--it has degenerated into an argument over whether or not OT
posters have taken the hint, and I really don't see that getting
anywhere. So, to summarize what I think has been said so far:
1) Offtopic posts are out of contro
On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:38:27 -0500, Gnu Raiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think it a little strange that people are calling on the list
> masters to monitor a list that is declared as non moderated, and has a
> Usenet component. Just how exactly are you going to stop people from
> posting from U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/07 22:16, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
[snip]
> I'm sorry if you feel I have been, as I most clearly have not been.
Roberto,
There comes a time when you've got to throw in the towel even if you
believe that you've done nothing wrong.
This is o
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:17:16PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > >
> > > Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for "bash Roberto
> > > festivities"? Perhaps your behavior
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:17:16PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:40:08PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > > > Then you missed the overall point, the human point, of
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:17:16PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:40:08PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > >
> > > Then you missed the overall point, the human point, of the matter.
> > > IMAP may be better, but for many p
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:40:08PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:43:08PM +, Tyler Smith wrote:
> > > > On 2007-05-19, Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrei Popescu) writes:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:26:59AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > If you want to be off topic yet marginally related to Debian, use
> > -curiosa. If it has nothing to do with Debian at all, pick from
> > the multitude of fora where it would be on t
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 17:59 -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:19:17PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> >
> > Come, lets here a solution, I've discussed some solutions, how about
> > you?
>
> If folks were reasonable about it, they'd simply "take it off list"
> on their own, as is
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 06:05:10PM -0500, Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> I personally think that everyone has a right to post, and who am I to tell
> someone else not to exercise their right to freedom of speech. I
You know... we should just merge every mailing list on the net into
one list and see just how
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:19:17PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 09:17 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 May 2007 08:02, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > > This is why I'm posting also this reply to the moderators. I really
> > > hope they put a stop to this, this time.
> >
> >
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 03:12:51PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > We had a problem on the Libranet list where a number of us got into
> > some serious and deep discussions about religion and politics. Not
> > one person was being disrespectful or
> vs. POP was yours and yours alone and was a technical point that was in
> response to a larger issue.
>
Actually, Amy Templeton asked whether someone would have to switch to
IMAP in order to enjoy those same benefits. In any case, welcome to the
"bash Roberto festivities."
- Original Message -
From: "M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: rampant offtopic and offensive posts to debian-user
On Sat, May 19, 2007 17:55:34 PM -0400, Miles Fidelman
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Ple
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 03:12:51PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> > There exists a gentoo-user mailing list. If a post to debian-user
> > would be exactly as on-topic if posted to gentoo-user, then it is
> > offtopic on *both* lists, and belongs on neither.
eir systems and deal with downloading headers
first, then deleting, or using other work arounds. The issue of IMAP
vs. POP was yours and yours alone and was a technical point that was in
response to a larger issue.
> efficient retrieval of POP mail [WAS: Re: rampant offtopic and
>
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 12:34:29AM +, s. keeling wrote:
> Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:15:01PM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 14:34:50 PM -0400, Greg Folkert
> > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >
> > > > That changes many t
Roberto C Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:15:01PM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2007 14:34:50 PM -0400, Greg Folkert
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > That changes many thing. First off BANNING is not the answer. It
> > > will be seen a a "bad
e mail clients, then POP
> > is perfectly fine.
>
> I think you missed Amy's point. It's great that there are
No, you *clearly* missed my point. I was specifically addressing the
technical aspects of IMAP vs POP from a user point of view. That is why
I changed the subject
On Saturday 19 May 2007 16:05, Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> I think it's a valid solution just because it does not fit into your
> solution doesn't mean it's not a valid solution. Like I mentioned before
> censorship is not the answer, why not just killfile the people you
> dislike, and go on about your duti
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
