The use of <OT>

[Alma J Wetzker]

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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> <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.
> 
>> 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.

I *LIKE* the nature of the list as it is.  I feel that this is a group
of friends with a common interest.  While it is certainly true that we
have passionate disagreements on some (way) OT topics, I don't believe
any friendships were fractured in the process.

I, for one, appreciate that the list covers occasional topics beyond
linux.  There is some significant know-how in this list, and it is good
to be able to access it.  While I see Lonnie's point, I like the ability
to wander further afield than pure linux.  Redmond Realities are a
bitch, but that is what we have.

    -- Alma