change your password day

[Nebulous]

Yay, I made the top ten

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[Nebulous]

[implied insult deleted]

[implied insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that either of you have said or implied about
me are at all true.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Irrelevant.

Very relevant.

Because cljp started in 1996.

And if you were not there back then, then there are no reason
why you should be surprised over not having seen a very active
poster.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Are you sure?

I am pretty sure that you were on the list!

Arne

 

[Tom Anderson]

You could either plonk me or delete those threads. You don't. Ask
yourself why.

I'm with Roedy on this. If you think a thread is OT, deal with it like you
would any other uninteresting thread: delete and read on. Complaining
about it is as OT as the thread itself, and doesn't even contain the
potentially interesting content a thread like this does. Complaining about
it, frankly, is perverse.

tom

 

[Tom Anderson]

Arne Vajh?j wrote :

So I opened the filter wider than required. <shrug>

Java 1.11 introduces (willan on-introduce) JATN, the Java API for Temporal
Networking. This allows (willan on-allow) programmers to connect back
(on-connecta forewhen) to NNTP servers in the early 90s and post (preposta
acting-retro-when) articles before the invention of java. This will be
(late be-an have re-having been) less interesting than it sounds, as most
of them are still Roedy posting links to his site and Lew demanding
SSCCEs.

tom
(with apologies to Dr Dan Streetmentioner)

 

[Tom Anderson]

Welcome back. Where have you been?
Lisbon.

Anyway, you fail to recognize that the hope here is that by making comments
in one specific example, the miscreant will see fit to change their ways,
thus saving us from continued future off-topic threads.

You fail to recognise Roedy!

An investment in the future does often require some up-front cost in
order to bear fruit. Furthermore, contrary to your claim, it is not
nearly as off-topic to discuss the best use of a newsgroup as it is to
post things that having nothing at all to do with the newsgroup. It'd
be silly to think that in a newsgroup, one should never actually
communicate about the best way to use _that newsgroup_.

I do actually disagree. I was on wiki - back when you didn't need to
qualify the name 'wiki' - when it collapsed under the sheer load of
WikiOnWiki meta-discussion. For a while, it turned what had been the home
of the most interesting technical discussion on the internet into a
roiling storm of uselessness. That stopped after a while, but it never
quite recovered. Since then, i've mostly seen meta-discussion as a
complete waste. Even off-topic but vaguely related discussion is better.

tom

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Java 1.11 introduces (willan on-introduce) JATN, the Java API for
Temporal Networking. This allows (willan on-allow) programmers to
connect back (on-connecta forewhen) to NNTP servers in the early 90s and
post (preposta acting-retro-when) articles before the invention of java.
This will be (late be-an have re-having been) less interesting than it
sounds, as most of them are still Roedy posting links to his site and
Lew demanding SSCCEs.

So that's why we get so much spam in these newsgroups?

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

Irrelevant.

[calls me a liar]

No, you're the liar.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

[misquotes me and implies an insult]

Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

[suggests that I might be lying]

No, you're the liar.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

Arne Vajh?j wrote :

Mike Schilling wrote:
Jerry Gerrone wrote:
What's Oliver Wong doing in position number 5? Nobody by that name
posts here, and I don't recall anyone with that name except for a
comp.emacs flamer that paid a brief visit four or five years ago.
[implied insult deleted]
Very true.

No. None of the nasty things that Mike has said or implied about me
are at all true.

 

[Mike Schilling]

[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

Arne Vajh?j wrote :
Mike Schilling wrote:
Jerry Gerrone wrote:
What's Oliver Wong doing in position number 5? Nobody by that
name
posts here, and I don't recall anyone with that name except for a
comp.emacs flamer that paid a brief visit four or five years ago.

[implied insult deleted]

Very true.

No. None of the nasty things that Mike has said or implied about me
are at all true.

I didn't say or imply anything about you.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm with Roedy on this. If you think a thread is OT, deal with it like
you would any other uninteresting thread: delete and read on.
Complaining about it is as OT as the thread itself, and doesn't even
contain the potentially interesting content a thread like this does.
Complaining about it, frankly, is perverse.

Complaining about off-topic is the only way to try and raise S/N.

Arne

 

[Mike Schilling]

Complaining about off-topic is the only way to try and raise S/N.

Its immediate effect is always to lower it. Expecting the cumulative
effect will be to raise it is like expecting to turn a profit in Las
Vegas.

 

[Tom Anderson]

That's a completely incorrect analogy. Commercial gambling establishments
have a known "take"; barring cheating it's not possible to affect the outcome
in the long run.

Complaining about off-topic posts is more like disciplining an unruly child.

CLJP NAUGHTY STEP! CLJP NAUGHTY STEP!

tom

 

[Dave Searles]

You can argue with the dealer at a Vegas table until you're blue in the
face; it won't change the outcome. But the same is not necessarily true
of people who misbehave. True, some people are immune to common sense
and community standards, but often a person can be swayed to comply with
the community standards, if only someone expressly explains those
standards to the misbehaving person.

When, though, were *you* put in charge of community standards? Roedy is
at least as old a hand here as you are; maybe it should be *his* call.
In which case you and others flaming him are the ones violating
community standards. Or, the community standards should emerge by broad
consensus. In which case to *prove* you're not mis-enforcing them you'd
need to conduct a poll.

 

[Roedy Green]

Roedy is
at least as old a hand here as you are

Why is there a topic rule? To make it easier to find things. It is
not there because certain topics are verboten. When there are no new
threads for days at a time, the off-topic rules SHOULD be relaxed to
stimulate discussion.

When traffic falls below a certain volume, a newsgroup dies entirely.

Our newsgroup is in far more danger from low traffic and bullies
frightening others off than it is from topic drift and slightly off
topic posts.

Did you ever see the movie Dr. Strangelove? In it a US soldier refuses
to shoot a Coke machine to get a dime to phone in the recall codes for
nuclear bombers.

Spam is far more of a problem that off topic posts, yet there is
almost no discussion about how we could eliminate it.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com

I advocate that super programmers who can juggle vastly more complex balls than average guys can, should be banned, by management, from dragging the average crowd into system complexity zones where the whole team will start to drown.
~ Jan V.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Why is there a topic rule? To make it easier to find things.

No.

To avoid bothering people with stuff they are not interested in.

When traffic falls below a certain volume, a newsgroup dies entirely.

Our newsgroup is in far more danger from low traffic

cljp has a relative high traffic typical 2000-4000 posts per
day.

It would be fine with 1/10'th of that.

BTW, it is only the number of on topic posts that is relevant.

Offtopic posts and spam does not contribute to the groups
existence.

Spam is far more of a problem that off topic posts, yet there is
almost no discussion about how we could eliminate it.

That has already been explained to you once.

The typical spammer does not read replies. You do.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

When, though, were *you* put in charge of community standards? Roedy is
at least as old a hand here as you are; maybe it should be *his* call.
In which case you and others flaming him are the ones violating
community standards. Or, the community standards should emerge by broad
consensus. In which case to *prove* you're not mis-enforcing them you'd
need to conduct a poll.

The post of Roedys that started this thread is off topic.

Anyone understanding the four words in the group name can see that.

Arne

 

[Dave Searles]

cljp has a relative high traffic typical 2000-4000 posts per
day.

Bullshit. It has less than 1/10 that. It may have had that much years ago.