On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Ian C. Sison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > True, the fact that i do _not_ like that sort of list, but there are > > reasons for which i make my preference, and they as well are based on > > my experiences using both types of "policies"; these reasons being > > well explained by Eric's post. > > I can't help noticing that this changes the subject from what I was > talking about. (I don't object; I'm just mentioning it.) >
i did not say you objected in any way. And i did not also imply that you did. I was merely explaining myself. > > In the same light i never said that the other 'tradition' will not > > work because it clearly does for those that agree on the tradition and > > choose to follow it. > > You said, in the text I quoted, that the content of such a list is > dependent on the volunteerism of the "takers". No, it isn't. > Demonstrably. Yes it does, because in a subscribership that dutifully reposts the replies, the setup works. In a list that does not have dutiful reposters, you will end up with a list full of questions, and no answers. > We shouldn't have to go into the means by which the tradition is > maintained, on such lists. (I don't have time, and don't want to get > into it.) But the tradition _is_ maintained. On sun-managers, for > example, it's maintained quite consistently and successfully. > > >> That is _a_ policy. There are others. > > > > Whatever the 'other' policies may be, they should be implemented by > > the end user, and not forced upon the greater majority. > > There you go with the "shoulds", again. (And now you're adding a rather > odd hypothetical about some majority being "forced". Clearly, a group > adopts a particular mailing list policy because it wants it. "Forcing" > that group seems quite unlikely.) Correct, the term 'forced' is wrong. My point was simply in reaction to others complaining that PLUG mail traffic clutters their inboxes; which to me is an invalid and very subjective point. > You speak of your viewpoint as if it were manifestly the only one that > could be held on the matter. (The term "should" in this context > presupposes agreement with your value judgements.) My point was to say, > "Um, no, I don't think so." That 'should' in my statement indicates that I take a stand. I stand _against_ any form of stifling rules and regulations governing a public list. I stand against any form on unnecessary procedures governing the flow of information. And i stand against anyone proposing a set of rules that supposedly promotes 'order' into a community discussion list, pursuant to his/her preferences. I take a stand, and do not sit in the fence accepting each ones point of view. To me, the PLUG list should be available in raw form to everyone, and it's up to the individual to choose what and how to filter the information. People may disagree at the way i state my stand (or the very idea of the issue itself), and i don't really care, it's better than sitting in the fence. (And by this i do not imply that you do, just to be clear on that.) _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
