Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Jo, 12 mai 11, 16:20:39, Klistvud wrote: > Dne, 12. 05. 2011 12:21:49 je Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. napisal(a): +1 all all points made by Boyd and Klistvud. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offto

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Jo, 12 mai 11, 15:28:03, Freeman wrote: [big snip] > Except for top posting. That's an absolute. :) Well, it can be argued that bottom-posting-without-trimming is even worse :p Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailma

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Hello Camaleón, Am 2011-05-11 20:30:49, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > As a rule of thumb I always *reply* to the list and *resend* to the list > all the messages I receive, unless: > > 1/ I know beforehand the person is replying me and can easily see the > user wants to go private. 1+ > 2

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Friday 13 May 2011 15:43:43 Camaleón wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:57:53 -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:59:42AM +, Camale�n wrote: > > > > .snip > > > >> I'm fine if someone asks me off-list about anything (I reply almost all > >> o

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:57:53 -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:59:42AM +, Camale�n wrote: > > .snip >> >> I'm fine if someone asks me off-list about anything (I reply almost all >> of them) but something that is being discussed in a public

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:10:45 -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camale�n wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> >> > Lisi wrote: >> >> It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I >> >> thought that it w

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:03:52AM -0400, Chris Brennan wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:16 AM, wrote: > > +20 > > > > Oh and as far as that thing I said about having Cred, Camaleón assist more > > people on this list than just about anyone, so he's got Cred. > > > > Pick your battles a bit wi

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:59:42AM +, Camale�n wrote: .snip > > I'm fine if someone asks me off-list about anything (I reply almost all > of them) but something that is being discussed in a public thread should > be kept public... unless (I repeat) the user expli

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camale�n wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > > > Lisi wrote: > >> It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I > >> thought that it was rude of you to email me privately, not to mention > >> unpleasan

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:15:55PM -0700, evenso wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:24:30PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote: > > >On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: > > >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:24:30PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote: > >On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > >> > Lisi wrote: > >> >> It is list policy not to send priva

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Dne, 12. 05. 2011 12:21:49 je Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. napisal(a): In , Camaleón wrote: >On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:24:30 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote: >>>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: IMHO, that rule lacks the following p

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:16 AM, wrote: +20 > > Oh and as far as that thing I said about having Cred, Camaleón assist more > people on this list than just about anyone, so he's got Cred. > > Pick your battles a bit wiser. > > TeddyB > I have tried (rather well) to steer clear of this thread, a

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Camaleón said: > > It's nearly impossible to infer whether the sender meant the message to > be private or not. No, it is not. I am writing to a public mailing list and I expect that any reply to any of what I wrote on it is kept the same -public- and directed to the mailing list. So as I am n

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, 12 May 2011 05:49:53 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In , Camaleón wrote: >>On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:11:47 -0400, PMA wrote: >>> Camaleón wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Lisi wrote: > "Do not quote messages that were sent to you by othe

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Thu, 12 May 2011 05:21:49 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In , Camaleón wrote: >>> It's nearly impossible to infer whether the sender meant the message >>> to be private or not. >> >>No, it is not. >> >>I am writing to a public mailing list and I expect that any reply to any >>of what I

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

In , Camaleón wrote: >On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:11:47 -0400, PMA wrote: >> Camaleón wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Lisi wrote: "Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand." >>> >>> IMHO, t

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:11:47 -0400, PMA wrote: > Camaleón wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> >>> Lisi wrote: >>> "Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in >>> private mail, unless agreed beforehand." >> >> IMHO, that rule lacks the followi

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

In , Camaleón wrote: >On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:24:30 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote: >>>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: IMHO, that rule lacks the following preface: "Should a user states his/ her desire to keep a privat

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:24:30 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote: >>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: (...) >>> IMHO, that rule lacks the following preface: "Should a user states >>> his/ her desire to keep a private conversation..

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On 2011-05-11 18:11:56 shawn wilson wrote: >this thread still doesn't have an OT in the subject! It does here: "Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself". -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On 2011-05-11 17:50:25 teddi...@tmo.blackberry.net wrote: >Jeroen privately mailed a reply to my message as well. > >And again your complaining about spam jeroen, yours is the only spam I have >seen today, From : spam (countable and uncountable; plural spams) 1

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote: >On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> > Lisi wrote: >> >> It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I >> >> thought that it was rude of you to email me

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On 2011-05-11 03:32:58 Lisi wrote: >On Wednesday 11 May 2011 08:31:36 Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> Lisi wrote: >> > Putting this back on list. >> >> This was a private email. It was not meant to be sent to the list. I >> would think it's generally accepted that it's rather rude to do so. > >It is lis

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

It's hard to see a humble opinion ("IMHO") in this, flatly denying the rule. Camaleón wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Lisi wrote: "Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand." IMHO, that rule lacks t

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:50 PM, wrote: > > Jeroen privately mailed a reply to my message as well, in which he completely > ignored every validation to the points I made, especially the ones about > helping others before you go off trying to dictate group policy... > > I find emailing somebody

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Jeroen privately mailed a reply to my message as well, in which he completely ignored every validation to the points I made, especially the ones about helping others before you go off trying to dictate group policy... I find emailing somebody off list like this, especially after one user in the

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:54:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/11/2011 06:40 AM, consul tores wrote: > [snip] > > > >Could you please explain which concept of "terrorists" are you referring to? > >Real or political? > > > > Do any terrorists have (in the broad sense of the term) non-politica

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > > > Lisi wrote: > >> It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I > >> thought that it was rude of you to email me privately, not to mention > >> unpleasan

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On 05/11/2011 06:40 AM, consul tores wrote: [snip] Could you please explain which concept of "terrorists" are you referring to? Real or political? Do any terrorists have (in the broad sense of the term) non-political aims. -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure t

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > > > There are plenty of "broken" webmail services (i.e., Gmail) that by > default reply to the user's e-mail address instead to the e-mail address > of the mailing list and the user is n

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Lisi wrote: >> It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I >> thought that it was rude of you to email me privately, not to mention >> unpleasant. > > What you say is untrue. The code of conduct clearly states the

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Lisi wrote: It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I thought that it was rude of you to email me privately, not to mention unpleasant. What you say is untrue. The code of conduct clearly states the following: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct "Do not

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:53 AM, shawn wilson wrote: Ahhh, I read threads like this on reddit (and other online forums) when I'm > bored or just want to cringe at something. I never thought the likes of that > would reach this list. > This thread has been nothing but hysterical ... akin to mornin

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

2011/5/11 Andrei Popescu : > > I think of spammers like terrorist, abusing the internet. If defending > from them makes the internet less free then they won. > >> If preventing non subscribers from sending email is too big of a step >> you can always automatically moderate emails from non subscribe

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 09:53:38 shawn wilson wrote: > On May 11, 2011 4:33 AM, "Lisi" wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 May 2011 08:31:36 Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Ahhh, I read threads like this on reddit (and other online forums) when I'm > bored or just want to cringe at something. I never thought the

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On May 11, 2011 4:33 AM, "Lisi" wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 May 2011 08:31:36 Jeroen van Aart wrote: > > Lisi wrote: > > > Putting this back on list. > > > > This was a private email. It was not meant to be sent to the list. I > > would think it's generally accepted that it's rather rude to do so.

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 08:31:36 Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Lisi wrote: > > Putting this back on list. > > This was a private email. It was not meant to be sent to the list. I > would think it's generally accepted that it's rather rude to do so. > > -- > http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Jeroen Van Aart wrote: > > I see one of the main reasons spam emails actually make it to the list > is the policy of allowing non subscribers to email the list. I find this > policy, even though it's commendable, not something suited for this day > and age of email abuse. [...] > A mailing li

Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Lisi wrote: Putting this back on list. This was a private email. It was not meant to be sent to the list. I would think it's generally accepted that it's rather rude to do so. -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html -- To UNSUBSC

Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself

Putting this back on list. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself Date: Wednesday 11 May 2011 From: Jeroen van Aart To: Lisi Lisi wrote: > I have used this list for some years now, and find it to be very well managed. > It is not "abused" in any r