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.
* Read [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to