The use of <OT>

[Tony Alfrey]

Net Llama! wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tony Alfrey wrote:
>> I am opposed to the need for a specific off-topic list.  With virtually
> 
> Seeing as how the off topic list has existed for nearly 5 years, I think 
> you're a bit late to the party to be complaining.

I'm not complaining, I'm stating my reasons for opposing an off-topic 
list.  More specifically, I'm stating my reasons for allowing the 
interspersing of <OT>-prefixed subjects within the linux-users list, 
because it has been common practice and it seems to work.

> 
>> no exception, this list handles itself well and I personally like the
> 
> You must be new here.  There are numerous examples of how certain off 
> topic threads have turned into nasty flame wars full of vitriolic hate & 
> anger.

And they rapidly diminish and dissipate because everyone on the list 
moves on.

> 
>> <OT> banter interspersed with the usual linux stuff.  Lonnie has
>> insisted that I use the <OT> prefix for non-linux-specific stuff because
> 
> Again, you must be new here.  The use of <OT> has beeen expected going all 
> the way back to the Caldera list.

Obviously I'm not new on the list.  Is there some reason that you repeat 
this obvious contradiction?  Is there a productive reason for being 
provocative?

> 
>> it allows him and others to filter out <OT> from his mail stream.  This
>> sounds perfectly reasonable and workable.  But now I see that he is
>> being insistent on all <OT> content going to the general list.  This
>> destroys the character of the list and I think it should be rejected
>> unless the list somehow decays into 50% flame war/rant/abuse like the
>> SuSE list.
> 
> Perhaps if your contributions to this list were primarily on topic you'd 
> feel differently.  Taking a random sampling of your contributions, nearly 
> 100% could easily be classified as off-topic.

You're right; because the off-topic stuff can be fun;  I like a little 
fun.  And the on-topic stuff often gets solved very quickly because the 
list is full of competent people that can cut to the chase.

You've strayed from the issue that I'm trying to discuss.  I support the 
use of an <OT> prefix to the subject line because it allows those who 
wish <OT> content intermingled with the on-topic content to enjoy both, 
and allows those who do not want it to filter it out.  This is the way 
that the list has been working for a very long time, and you know this 
because you, too, are not a newcomer.

Let the list function in the manner that the members have been using it. 
  I admit that my windoze post should have been prefixed with <OT>. 
Would it have made you so angry if this had been the case?



-- 
Tony Alfrey
tonyalfrey at earthlink.net
"I'd Rather Be Sailing"