N
Nebulous
Daniel said: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.
Daniel said:Yay, I made the top ten![]()
[implied insult deleted]
[implied insult deleted]
[implied insults deleted]
Nebulous said:Irrelevant.
Nebulous said:None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
You could either plonk me or delete those threads. You don't. Ask
yourself why.
Arne Vajh?j wrote :
So I opened the filter wider than required. <shrug>
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.
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_.
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.
Irrelevant.
[calls me a liar]
[misquotes me and implies an insult]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
[suggests that I might be lying]
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.
Jerry said:[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.
Tom said: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.
Arne said:Complaining about off-topic is the only way to try and raise S/N.
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.
Peter said: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.
Roedy is
at least as old a hand here as you are
Roedy said:Why is there a topic rule? To make it easier to find things.
When traffic falls below a certain volume, a newsgroup dies entirely.
Our newsgroup is in far more danger from low traffic
Spam is far more of a problem that off topic posts, yet there is
almost no discussion about how we could eliminate it.
Dave said: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.
Arne said:cljp has a relative high traffic typical 2000-4000 posts per
day.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.