>With that said, surprisingly there are still some people out there >who can read those articles, but still insist that it's much better >to waste hundreds of peoples' time with messy, poorly-formatted, >poorly-trimmed, difficult to understand, utter waste-of-bandwidth >list posts (let alone off-list messages). > >Ron :/
I do not entirely agree with this arguments in one thing. It's ok that we should trim the most of our posts. It's ok that we should quote whatever is necessary, but only that. And we should also take the garbage out ofthe reply. I do, however, not agree that we tend to make humans acting like machines. And I can see here that to some extent, when we demand that all rules should always apply. This was my first law on this informatics stuff: "It's more the computers that should work for you, not you for the computers." With this said, and with this in mind, we, science and knowledge friends, should always count for the mistake. (Because humans are ALSO, beings of waste, redundancy, bad links, and "irrelevant" information), and the worst of all is that, in some perspectives, this is not ALL bad. We should trim. And we should always try to bee as objective as possible, but too much objectivity may take us humans for something we are not, undergoing the idea we are perfectly accurate and objective machines. (and maybe we are, but we are certainly less squared, I believe) Let us have this remaining of human little shards (bits) of failure as a reflection of our own "flawed" nature. :) Regards, Márcio ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
