On 20 Mar 2002, at 4:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:31:34PM -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> > For all of the last several golf matches, essentially *all* of the 
> > traffic specific to a single tournament has been on a very small number 
> > of threads...
> 
> It would, if all the traffic came at once. But usually, those threads
> last for over a week. Most people do read mail more than once a week.
> 
> And even if you go through the trouble of setting up a perfect killfile
> entry, you still need to download the stuff.

Oh, please.  If it took a minute to download *all* "143" messages I'd be 
surprised.  Yes, I know that some folk do pay by the byte but minimizing-
bytes has hardly been a hallmark of the postings to the list...  
[thinking here of the HUGE ascii-art hackery, and all of the postings on 
the first golf tournament probably didn't add up to as much traffic as 
that picture of Larry or Randal or whoever it was, or that 'banner 
program']

> > fun for *some* of us, so keep it on fwp, just be careful with subject 
> 
> "some" being the keyword. I'd say that because it's fun for only *some*
> of us, a separate list is in order.

Oh please, again.  There is *NO* topic that is 'fun' for everyone.  I 
suspect that some folk didn't find the discussion of Perl 6's breaking 
printf strings very much fun, so maybe we need a separate list for 'perl 
syntax discussions'.  And then there's the ASCII-art stuff, and the 
JAPH's (is it obligatory, by your reckoning, that everyone finds JAPHs 
fun?); and then there's the detailed discussions of the side effects of 
little-known variables, and...   Probably with a little work we could 
divide fwp up into 20 separate "focused fun" sublists...  some fun.

I say keep it as one list and have folk learn to use the machinery their 
mail clients provide them with; that's why mail clients HAVE that 
machinery.

   /Bernie\

-- 
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--          

Reply via email to