The use of <OT>

[Net Llama!]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tony Alfrey wrote:
> 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.

I think you've misunderstood.  I didn't state or suggest that all OT 
threads must go to general.  The warning in the footer is a recommendation 
that if there's a doubt, send it to general.  OT threads can certainly 
continue on this list, assuming that they are polite, appropriately 
marked, and don't run on indefinitely.


>>> 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.

That is not how they've historically turned out.  Usually they remain out 
of control until one of the list moderators orders the participants to 
move it to general or get booted from the list.

>>> <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?

Because you keep making comments as if you've been completely unaware of 
what has been the historical precedents of this 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.
>
> 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?

No

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman                        netllama at linux-sxs.org
LlamaLand				http://netllama.linux-sxs.org