On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 07:18:05PM +0000, MarkD wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 01:59:03PM -0400, Dave Sill allegedly wrote:
> > >On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 11:53:24AM -0500, John Hogan allegedly wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >If you're tired of the noise in this list, the best-of-qmail list is
> > >> >for you.
> > >>
> > >> if you continue to make noise on a mailing list to which no one listens,
> > >> are you heard at all?
> > >
> > >Heh. One assumes that this information may be available thru
> > >meta-means, such as www.qmail.org
> >
> > I don't follow. This list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will remain exactly
> > as-is, including the searchable archives at ORNL. The best-of-qmail
> > list will have its own smaller, cleaner archives.
> >
> > No information is being lost.
>
> I may have missed the point completely, but I thought John was making
> a parody from "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does
> it make a sound...". In other words, if this list is so bad that we
> need a BOQ list, who will notice your announcement here?
>
> What confirmed my suspicions as to John's intent was the paradox he
> created by posing the question in response to your announcement!
>
> He's the double joke. John also demonstrates the need for BOQ by
> following up an on-topic post with (arguably off-topic) humour.
>
>
> Either John is very clever or I missed the point completely. Or is it
> that John is very clever *and* I missed the point completely?
I think that John's point was that if all of the "veterans" subscribe to BOQ
and leave [EMAIL PROTECTED], then [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be basically
worthless.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
