I'm sure I should follow my own advice and just ignore this thread, thereby not stretching out it's death pangs.
<sigh> So... a strict interpretation of... what policy? Would suggest that this discussion about the appropriare use of the Discuss list should have it's own thread? Incidentally, can anyone point to a LOPSA policy or directive about how one should properly frame related news articles? Please don't respond with the equivalent of "well, good network citizens should already know how to do this." I'm sure everyone that was unhappy to see the news clipping is only chiming in here to "help". Maybe privately pointing that out would have been simpler, more helpful and less embarassing to the thread's originator. Mike On Mar 15, 2013 11:54 AM, "Robert Novak" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, Mike, it probably would have been. And that's why I ignored it the > first time around when Shrdlu complained. > > I don't think there are any list police on this thread... just some > constructive criticism (if one can avoid hyperbole) and a chance to > understand how others feel about random crop dusting of news. :) > > And the conservation of energy is probably a false equivalency, although > I'm sure I could have blogged about my town's paper bag ordinance with > nearly the same number of joules expended. Maybe I will. Check out my blog > at rsts11.com if you wonder if I will. :) > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Michael Ryder <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I am going to represent the people who live under rocks, in caves, etc. >> >> I had not heard about this information, and welcomed it, even if it >> didn't directly apply to me. >> >> On the other hand, there have been plenty of other conversations that I >> haven't cared about, and simply deleted. >> >> Would it not have been simpler to just delete the message or ignore the >> thread and move on? >> >> Perhaps we should instead look at all the energy being invested to >> publicly correct the behavior of another LOPSA member. Is it really >> appropriate that the list should be used for that purpose, instead of >> private channels? It's threads like this that inspire people to NOT post >> something useful because of the fear of upsetting the list police. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Robert Novak <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I'd have to agree with Luke on this. >>> >>> There are lots of issues (actually, most of them) that can by some >>> stretch of the imagination be related to system administrators. (Paper bag >>> laws? All sysadmins use groceries, right?) If it takes four paragraphs to >>> explain why something is a great fit for the LOPSA general discussion list, >>> that should tell you something. >>> >>> And the carpet-bombing model (i.e. "NO REAL CONTEXT BUT HEY IT'S NEWS >>> LOOK AT ME" :(: )probably sits poorly with more than one list member. You >>> might find a list or forum that's more suited to this sort of thing... back >>> in the day, Computers and Academic Freedom newsletter was this sort of >>> thing. (disclaimer, I was the caf-news guest editor April 30, 1993. Wow. >>> Feels like a long time ago.) >>> >>> Sure, this may apply to some sysadmins who cross *borders* (not >>> boarders), but I'm going to guess more sysadmins fly than drive or bike >>> across borders. Why not bring up the new TSA pocketknife rule (no, really, >>> please don't)? Or if you want a pertinent, tuned, and useful discussion, >>> why not start a conversation about how traveling technicians cope with >>> having their nifty tools gaped at or confiscated when traveling? >>> >>> Or you can probably blog about random news that you feel affects you and >>> your profession. lopsa.org has a blog feature (https://lopsa.org/blog), >>> as do blogger.com and wordpress.com. That way if people find the topic >>> interesting, they can follow you there, or on your regular blog if you >>> have/make one. And people who expect a tighter linkage between being a >>> professional sysadmin and the content of this list won't be inconvenienced >>> or lash out. >>> >>> And yeah, four paragraphs. I know. Hope this helps anyway. >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Luke Hankins <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps including your insightful analysis in the initial email would >>>> help? This might prevent the list from just becoming an RSS feed of news >>>> items. >>>> >>>> -Luke >>>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Harvey Rothenberg <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Over To You: >>>> Shrdlu, >>>> >>>> I post news items for the purpose of *creating discussion* of *this >>>> news*. I felt this news was important since prior experience and >>>> legal decisions had allow the Boarder Guards to hold you up and insist >>>> upon your cooperation in the search of your electronic equipment and other >>>> areas of their concern. >>>> >>>> This effected any persons, regardless of position, when crossing our >>>> boarders. So if you travel to Canada or Mexico a lot or a little, and you >>>> gave cause for the guard to suspect you (kidding or not). You could be >>>> detained or exposing yourself to a possible breach in your trade secrets or >>>> any other information that you did not want exposed. >>>> >>>> Now you can refuse and they can not breach your rights, for now. This >>>> will probably take some time before you actually see a difference. This >>>> should be effective for US citizens, to the best of my knowledge. >>>> >>>> I thought that firms that send techs and admins across boarder would be >>>> interested in this news. Do you cross boarder ? I would guess not. Does >>>> this Group not have members that work for internationals and some times >>>> have to cross US boarders ? This is why I posted this piece of news. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Harvey Rothenberg >>>> >>>> "Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the >>>> lesson afterwards." -- Unknown >>>> >>>> --- On *Thu, 3/14/13, Shrdlu <[email protected]>* wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Shrdlu <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [lopsa-discuss] Ninth Circuit says border searches without >>>> suspicion are unconstitional >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013, 1:40 PM >>>> >>>> On 3/14/2013 10:15 AM, Shrdlu wrote: >>>> > Could we PLEASE make a special list for this, so that I don't have to >>>> > see it anymore? >>>> >>>> Sorry. I please inadequate caffeine, your honor. I'd still like to have >>>> the news article postings cease, if that was at all possible. >>>> >>>> -- The right to buy weapons is the right to be free. >>>> >>>> The Weapon Shops of Isher, by A. E. van Vogt >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >>>> http://lopsa.org/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >>>> http://lopsa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >>>> http://lopsa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >>> http://lopsa.org/ >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
