cpghost wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:03:04AM -0500, Greg Barniskis wrote:
No one is belittling the subject, only pointing out that it's both OT and done with. The appearance of the logo on the Web site is not a beginning, it's a finality.

questions@ is for general user questions. The sex-toy just appeared
on the main website, and a user then asked questions about it. That's
a perfectly valid forum, *especially* considering the current time frame.

Point taken. I could have phrased that better.

* What/when/how did this happen?
* How and when can it be undone?
* Why didn't I hear about this before?

These are indeed all perfectly valid questions. What I was trying to express is that the askers really don't seem to be accepting (or even seeing) the perfectly valid answers:

* See the archives where this was beaten to death multiple times.
* The best place to pursue such matters is in those forums chartered for PR and general chatter.

To those taking affront at such answers, no one is saying "oh, fork you!" in some intentionally rude or belittling way (at least, I'm not), they're saying forking (process-wise) to the appropriate forum is the logical thing to do.

And [in response to the opposition party] no, I don't buy the assertion that questions@ is the correct forum to continue fighting in simply because it's popular. That's like saying spam is good because it reaches a lot of people cheaply. Forums have charters for reasons.

Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator
South Central Library System (SCLS)
Library Interchange Network (LINK)
<gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 266-6348
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to