Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 07:32:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

> However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for
> offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the
> forums.

People need to learn that mailing lists *always* have some off-topic
content, partly because topics drift, partly because people have
different notions of what, precisely, is on-topic, and partly because
people are lazy and/or arseholes. The amount of traffic on this list is
so low that what off-topic stuff we get just doesn't matter. Learn to
ignore it if you don't care about it, just like I ignore anything about
Windows.

> Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better
> off shutting it down entirely?

Yes. No. Better to shut down the forums, as mailing lists are always a
better way of communicating than web forums are.

-- 
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

There are many different types of sausages.  The best are
from the north of England.  The wurst are from Germany.
  -- seen in alt.2eggs...

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Majid Hussain]

hey there,
can we all stop this thread?
since I was the person at the start who asked the question on what is
going to happen when the iplayer changes because of the white paper?
and what effects will be felt to get_iplayer I would request we stop
this thread please?
thanks for reading.
Majid

On 18/05/2016, Michael Pavling  wrote:
> On many occasions, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
>> Please see below ...
>>
>> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html
>
> 
>
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
>
> Please don't feed the trolls.
>
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
>

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Michael Pavling]

On many occasions, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
> Please see below ...
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html



A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?


Please don't feed the trolls.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Simon Ward]

If you don't read below the top part of the message you might not see what I 
have written below, but that's where my replies are nonetheless. If you can't 
see them because your MUA does not let you see them I sugest you get it fixed 
or find one that is less broken. 

On 18 May 2016 20:20:05 BST, Dennis Smith  wrote:
>How about, we don't bring the list down to the level of a Fox/Sky
>broadcast?

By posting without proper quotation and with disregard to the list guidelines 
that have already been referenced I feel this is precisely what you are doing. 

>As the thread has been mangled (it was one thread but people changed
>the subject line fudging threaded view), I cannot find the original
>comment without taxing my sore brain right now.

If your MUA is breaking threads because of changed Subject headers this is a 
problem with your MUA. Threads are created using the References and In-Reply-To 
headers, not Subject. Broken threads may also be caused by broken MUAs not 
correctly setting the References and In-Reply-To headers.

Please get your broken MUA fixed or find one that isn't broken, and stop trying 
to cripple everyone else's email experience to suit your crippled MUA.

>However I wanted to
>elaborate on my comment about not reading the messages below the top
>part. To clarify, in received messages the old parts of the message
>are filtered out and only the new part of the message is visible, if
>you put your comment in the middle of the message, it's not shown to
>me.

This is a problem with your MUA. If it filters the old parts of the message 
without even giving you the option of showing them it is removing the ability 
to quote relevant parts. Google Mail hides (collapses) quoted text blocks but 
at least gives the option of expanding them.

I currently use five different MUAs: Kaiten Mail (based on K-9 Mail), Mozilla 
Thunderbird, Gmail (web interface), Evolution, and Mutt. I have also used, that 
I can remember, K-9 Mail, Gmail (Android), Pine, Sylpheed Claws/Claws Mail, 
Eudora, Yahoo! (old interface), Outlook (2000?), and Netscape/Mozilla before 
Thunderbird and Firefox became things. I don't recall having any trouble with 
properly quoted messages with any of these. It really sounds like your MUA is 
in the minority.

>I have about 30 messages that are largely a pile of nonsense mush
>without context or meaning, that in order to read the full message
>including original content I have to open each one separately. 

This is backwards. The context is provided by quoting text then adding your 
reply below the quoted text. The whole message followed by whole reply (or 
whole reply followed by whole message in the case of top-posting) only really 
works for small messages. Email is not SMS or instant messaging. There are 
often many points made in one email, each soliciting a response, which 
naturally leads to an interposed quote-reply format.

>Also I am subscribed to about 80 different groups with daily emails (I
>receive well over a 1000 emails a day as a result) and I have no
>trouble with any of them except the 2 lists that insist on interposed
>or bottom posting.

Is this a competition? You win on the number of mailing lists (I currently 
subscribe to about 65), but your experience is totally opposite to mine: I am 
on one list where top-posting is the norm (two if we're counting private lists, 
in which case I'm on ~70-75 lists overall), but don't think I've seen anyone 
complain about interposed quotes and replies before you. Some lists are 
announce only, so the quoting method doesn't apply. The remainder all favour 
what you call interposed posting. 

Regards,
Simon Ward
-- 
Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Christopher Woods]

To wit, at this point I think I speak for most recipients in declaring that 
this thread's run its course. It's now serving no use except to sustain a 
circular conversation and add to my inbox.


Please, let's all move on to more useful discussions. Have a good evening all.

Chris



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Dennis Smith]

How about, we don't bring the list down to the level of a Fox/Sky broadcast?

As the thread has been mangled (it was one thread but people changed
the subject line fudging threaded view), I cannot find the original
comment without taxing my sore brain right now. However I wanted to
elaborate on my comment about not reading the messages below the top
part. To clarify, in received messages the old parts of the message
are filtered out and only the new part of the message is visible, if
you put your comment in the middle of the message, it's not shown to
me. I have about 30 messages that are largely a pile of nonsense mush
without context or meaning, that in order to read the full message
including original content I have to open each one separately.

Also I am subscribed to about 80 different groups with daily emails (I
receive well over a 1000 emails a day as a result) and I have no
trouble with any of them except the 2 lists that insist on interposed
or bottom posting.

Dennis Smith
M1DLG

On 18 May 2016 at 19:55, C E Macfarlane <c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk> wrote:
> Please see below ...
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
>> Behalf Of Veni Vidi Video
>> Sent: 18 May 2016 19:20
>> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
>>     Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>>
>> Okay, everyone is thinking it, so I'll say it.  If C E
>> Macfarlane were banned from the list the vast majority of the
>> truly offensive OT noise would be eliminated.
>
> Well, for the most part I think I am responding to people flaming me, as you
> have just done!  This suggests to me that the cure is not as simple as you
> make out.
>
>>   It's easy to
>> filter him out
>
> Yes, and that would certainly be preferable to continuing the flame war.
>
>>   but unfortunately various people rise to the
>> bait
>
> Again, as you have done.
>
>>   and respond to his nastiness
>
> Mmmm!  Pots and kettles!
>
>>   and those people may in
>> other threads provide useful observations.
>
> As indeed I have done in the past, and may do so in future.
>
>> At a minimum, I suggest to everyone that you just not respond
>> to Macfarlane.  Yes, he'll flame you.  I know beyond a doubt
>> he'll flame me for this.
>
> Well, you may consider the above a flame, but, given the provocation, it
> seems a fairly reasonable response to me!
>
>
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 19:55 +0100, C E Macfarlane wrote:
> Please see below ...
> 
> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

Please stop putting this at the top of every message you send.

It really does look like you are explicitly referring people to see the
URL "below" (on the very next line). Signatures belong at the end of
the message, after a line which contains only '-- ' (dash dash space).

-- 
dwmw2




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of Veni Vidi Video
> Sent: 18 May 2016 19:20
> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>
> Okay, everyone is thinking it, so I'll say it.  If C E
> Macfarlane were banned from the list the vast majority of the
> truly offensive OT noise would be eliminated.

Well, for the most part I think I am responding to people flaming me, as you
have just done!  This suggests to me that the cure is not as simple as you
make out.

>   It's easy to
> filter him out

Yes, and that would certainly be preferable to continuing the flame war.

>   but unfortunately various people rise to the
> bait

Again, as you have done.

>   and respond to his nastiness

Mmmm!  Pots and kettles!

>   and those people may in
> other threads provide useful observations.

As indeed I have done in the past, and may do so in future.

> At a minimum, I suggest to everyone that you just not respond
> to Macfarlane.  Yes, he'll flame you.  I know beyond a doubt
> he'll flame me for this.

Well, you may consider the above a flame, but, given the provocation, it
seems a fairly reasonable response to me!


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Veni Vidi Video]

On May 18, 2016, at 6:01 AM, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
> ... have you no sense of your own hypocrisy in that by making such a 
> pointless,
> not to mention insulting, complaint you actually add uselessly to the very
> noise that you complain about ???!!! ...

Okay, everyone is thinking it, so I'll say it.  If C E Macfarlane were banned 
from the list the vast majority of the truly offensive OT noise would be 
eliminated.  It's easy to filter him out, but unfortunately various people rise 
to the bait and respond to his nastiness, and those people may in other threads 
provide useful observations.

At a minimum, I suggest to everyone that you just not respond to Macfarlane.  
Yes, he'll flame you.  I know beyond a doubt he'll flame me for this.  But 
consider the source.  I promise I will not respond.

-vvv
___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Owen Smith]

The web itself didn't exist until the early 1990s, and it took a bit longer 
than that for web forums to appear. Internet email is nearly 20 years older 
than that and was in quite wide use when I started using it in the mid 1980s. 
I'm less sure about dates for newsgroups but I believe they are also 
substantially older than the web, by at least a decade.

So not from remotely similar eras, unless by that you mean "the couple of 
decades when only techie people used the internet".

-- 
Owen Smith 
Cambridge, UK

> On 18 May 2016, at 12:36, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
> 
> Email, newsgroups, and web forums all date from a similar era!


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of James Scholes
> Sent: 18 May 2016 13:49
> To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>
> Please, for the love of God, see below.

[Please let's not, so snip more noise about more noise about ...]

As there is no smiley in your reply, I assume you must mean it for real  -
have you no sense of your own hypocrisy in that by making such a pointless,
not to mention insulting, complaint you actually add uselessly to the very
noise that you complain about ???!!!  If you wish us all to take your
advice, start by following it yourself!



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[James Scholes]

Please, for the love of God, see below.

C E Macfarlane wrote:
> Better to do it IF there is the demand.  So far we've only heard NAYs in
> response here, so it doesn't seem likely, but if as many or more YEAHs
> appear, then I would be willing to pursue the matter further.

It's now reached the stage where the noise about the off-topic noise has
become louder than the original off-topic noise it was aiming to stop,
with people replying just to score points against the opposition.
Honestly I've worked with children who are less likely to answer back
than some of the adults on this list.

Personally, rather than some theoretical vote about some silly idea to
move to a newsgroup which isn't going to happen, I vote we all just shut
up.  The list is clearly here to stay, get_iplayer is working, everyone
is happy.  If you want to discuss newsgroup clients, go elsewhere.  No
wonder a forum was created for GiP - I wouldn't wish wading through this
mess on anybody, least of all the developer(s) of the fine software we
all use every day.

In many other communities, the continued proliferation of this sort of
traffic would see you removed and/or moderated at the very least.
Please try to bear that in mind before replying to me just to tell me
how much you disagree with my tone.  Or if you do, have the decency and
common sense to do it off-list.

Thank you, and a good afternoon to you all.
-- 
James Scholes
http://twitter.com/JamesScholes

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of SquarePenguin
> Sent: 18 May 2016 13:16
> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
> Cc: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>
> On 18/05/2016 12:36, C E Macfarlane wrote:
> > I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list
> might be better
> > served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum.
>
> Why don't you set one up and publicise it?
>
> Better to just do it rather than pontificate about it.

Better to do it IF there is the demand.  So far we've only heard NAYs in
response here, so it doesn't seem likely, but if as many or more YEAHs
appear, then I would be willing to pursue the matter further.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[SquarePenguin]

On 18/05/2016 12:36, C E Macfarlane wrote:

I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list might be better
served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum.


Why don't you set one up and publicise it?

Better to just do it rather than pontificate about it.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

Note: When you reply to an email message, the header of the message being
replied to is normally here, so your placing of some, but not all, of your
reply here makes it look as though the rest of the message beyond the header
below is just untrimmed quoting, and, habitually, therefore not worth
scrolling down any further for.  If you want people to be certain of seeing
and reading ALL of your message, it would be better to not to write anything
here, but instead ...

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of Shevek
> Sent: 17 May 2016 13:33
> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
> Cc: get_iplayer; David Woodhouse
> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

... start here!  So (quoted out of order in the interests of clarity) ...

> Er, did you actually bother reading to the end of my reply where I did
> reply to your points?

... I'm sorry, but, for the above reason, I didn't see the rest of your
message, for which I accept responsibility of habit, not laziness, as I
think you must also accept some responsibility for confusing quoting.

> Outlook does not put in the " Please see below ..."

Nobody's complaining about "Please see below ..."

To return to the missed section of your earlier post ...

> How many people on this list do you think know about NNTP, let alone
> use it still?

I don't know, and I suspect neither do you, but the fact that they are using
something involved as GiP instead of just a normal PVR implies a level of
technical willingness to learn.

> You are asking probably 90-95% of this list to:

You have no real basis for such figures, the truth is that neither of us
knows what the percentage would be.

> a) download and install a client (I am aware that some use email
> clients with built in news reading capabilities [snip])

Yes, and, depending on your OS, there are various other possibilities.

> b) gain access to an NNTP service (not all ISPs provide it any more)

For text only, there are many free options, it's usually only binary
downloads that require payment.

> c) configure the client

Usually easier than trying to configure an email client.

> d) learn to use the client

Again, pretty easy.

> e) learn new rules

Not much different from a list such as this.

> People know web forums and people know email. Asking them to use a 90s
> technology is, frankly, ridiculous.

Email, newsgroups, and web forums all date from a similar era!

So your so-called 'obvious' arguments are all straw men, you haven't really
got a single, cogent argument at all!

I am merely pointing out that the requirements of this list might be better
served by a newsgroup rather than a web-forum.  That the majority of people
here may not WISH to migrate to a newsgroup I can entirely accept, but there
is no technical or similar reason to prevent it.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Alan Milewczyk]

On 17/05/16 16:38, Simon Morgan wrote:

I should add that I hope we don't lose the extremely helpful answers from
Vangelis on this list. I think I have learnt more from his postings than
almost any other.

Rgds
Simon Morgan


+1

Without a shadow of doubt the most helpful poster on this list by far.

A



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Simon Morgan]

I should add that I hope we don't lose the extremely helpful answers from
Vangelis on this list. I think I have learnt more from his postings than
almost any other.

Rgds
Simon Morgan

-Original Message-
From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf
Of Simon Morgan
Sent: 17 May 2016 07:47
To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
Subject: RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

I would be very sad to lose this list. I can tolerate a bit of off-topic
noise provided people remain civil which, sadly, is not always the case.
Keep up the (mostly) good work you posters.
Thanks to all gip developers for an excellent facility.

Simon Morgan

-Original Message-
From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf
Of SquarePenguin
Sent: 16 May 2016 20:11
To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

On 16/05/2016 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be 
> better
> 
> off shutting it down entirely?

>I know that there are several people who can't/won't join/access the 
>forums
and rely on this list for announcements/assistance.

>No doubt those several represent many more silent lurkers so I would 
>say
there is certainly a benefit to this list.



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Shevek]

On 17 May 2016 at 08:48, C E Macfarlane <c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk> wrote:
> Please see below ...
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Shevek [mailto:she...@shevek.co.uk]
>> Sent: 17 May 2016 08:33
>> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
>> Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer
>>     Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>>
>> However, now that I see it at the top of _every_ post you make where
>> you make an inline reply, with your "Please see below ..." inserted I
>> must now agree that you are simply spamming your URL.
>
> It's put where it is automatically by Outlook.

Outlook does not put in the " Please see below ..."

>
> Of course, if I was contributing to a newsgroup using a reader such as
> Agent, it wouldn't happen like that, it would appear correctly at the bottom
> of each post.
>
>> I know that you will not change your behaviour and do not expect you
>> to, this is not an opening for discussion, merely adding my
>> tuppenceworth.
>
> So why contribute to the OT noise then?
>
> Again, rather as before, it seems like someone who's losing or just lost an
> argument is picking on irrelevant trivia to moan about rather than
> gracefully accepting defeat.
>

Er, did you actually bother reading to the end of my reply where I did
reply to your points?

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: Shevek [mailto:she...@shevek.co.uk]
> Sent: 17 May 2016 08:33
> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
> Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer
> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>
> However, now that I see it at the top of _every_ post you make where
> you make an inline reply, with your "Please see below ..." inserted I
> must now agree that you are simply spamming your URL.

It's put where it is automatically by Outlook.

Of course, if I was contributing to a newsgroup using a reader such as
Agent, it wouldn't happen like that, it would appear correctly at the bottom
of each post.

> I know that you will not change your behaviour and do not expect you
> to, this is not an opening for discussion, merely adding my
> tuppenceworth.

So why contribute to the OT noise then?

Again, rather as before, it seems like someone who's losing or just lost an
argument is picking on irrelevant trivia to moan about rather than
gracefully accepting defeat.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Shevek]

On 17 May 2016 at 07:57, C E Macfarlane <c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk> wrote:
> Please see below ...
>


When someone complained about your signature recently, I agreed
(albeit silently) with your arguments.

However, now that I see it at the top of _every_ post you make where
you make an inline reply, with your "Please see below ..." inserted I
must now agree that you are simply spamming your URL.

There is no reason for it to be there when you are replying inline. It
is far simpler to delete than to insert your text every time.

I know that you will not change your behaviour and do not expect you
to, this is not an opening for discussion, merely adding my
tuppenceworth.

>> -Original Message-
>> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
>> Behalf Of Shevek
>> Sent: 17 May 2016 07:39
>> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
>> Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer
>>     Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
>>
>> On 16 May 2016 at 21:47, C E Macfarlane
>> <c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would
>> suggest that migrating to a newsgroup would be a better
>> alternative than to a web-based system.
>> >
>>
>> That is such a bad idea for so many reasons!
>
> Yet it seems you can't actually give a single one.

Apologies, I though the reasons obvious. Apparently not.

How many people on this list do you think know about NNTP, let alone
use it still?

There are quite a few subscribers with tech backgrounds so I would
guess that it is a higher number than some other collections of people
on the internet

However, I would guess that we are still quite a small percentage.

You are asking probably 90-95% of this list to:

a) download and install a client (I am aware that some use email
clients with built in news reading capabilities, but the remaining
points stand)
b) gain access to an NNTP service (not all ISPs provide it any more)
c) configure the client
d) learn to use the client
e) learn new rules

People know web forums and people know email. Asking them to use a 90s
technology is, frankly, ridiculous.

>
>> I tell you what, we should all invest in 9600 baud modems and
>> start up a BBS :)
>
> Ah!  I see it now!  Bereft of logical argument, you prefer sarcasm instead.
>

I fall back to sarcasm when someone makes an argument as ridiculous
yours. It's either that or Godwin!

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

> -Original Message-
> From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org]On
> Behalf Of Shevek
> Sent: 17 May 2016 07:39
> To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
> Cc: David Woodhouse; get_iplayer
> Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...
> 
> On 16 May 2016 at 21:47, C E Macfarlane 
> <c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would 
> suggest that migrating to a newsgroup would be a better 
> alternative than to a web-based system.
> >
> 
> That is such a bad idea for so many reasons!

Yet it seems you can't actually give a single one.
 
> I tell you what, we should all invest in 9600 baud modems and 
> start up a BBS :)

Ah!  I see it now!  Bereft of logical argument, you prefer sarcasm instead.


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Simon Morgan]

I would be very sad to lose this list. I can tolerate a bit of off-topic
noise provided people remain civil which, sadly, is not always the case.
Keep up the (mostly) good work you posters.
Thanks to all gip developers for an excellent facility.

Simon Morgan

-Original Message-
From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf
Of SquarePenguin
Sent: 16 May 2016 20:11
To: get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

On 16/05/2016 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be 
> better
> 
> off shutting it down entirely?

>I know that there are several people who can't/won't join/access the forums
and rely on this list for announcements/assistance.

>No doubt those several represent many more silent lurkers so I would say
there is certainly a benefit to this list.



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Shevek]

On 16 May 2016 at 21:47, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
>
> So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would suggest that 
> migrating to a newsgroup would be a better alternative than to a web-based 
> system.
>

That is such a bad idea for so many reasons!

I tell you what, we should all invest in 9600 baud modems and start up a BBS :)

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Owen Smith]

I don't do newsgroups, so for me that's actually worse than switching to a 
forum. I can join a web forum if I have to, but I currently have no means to 
read newsgroups nor do I have any interest in finding one.
-- 
Owen Smith 
Cambridge, UK

> On 16 May 2016, at 21:47, C E Macfarlane  wrote:
> 
> So, if we are wondering whether to discontinue, I would suggest that 
> migrating to a newsgroup would be a better alternative than to a web-based 
> system.



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Shevek]

On 16 May 2016 at 20:38, tellyaddict  wrote:
> I don't think that was quite what Dennis meant. Obviously a reply like you've 
> just done needs to be done in that way to make any sense.
>
> I was taught when I first started using this list that you were supposed to 
> post new replies at the top of the email with the message you are replying to 
> underneath.

I have no idea where you got that from

Here are the guidelines for this list: http://david.woodhou.se/email.html

As linked from the signup page:
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Specifically points 4 to 6

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

RE: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Christopher Woods]

(large volume of prior replies removed)

I don't like change. ;) I like this list. I learn stuff on it. It's so easy 
to read and participate. List discipline just requires a modicum of self 
restraint, though we all like to indulge occasionally.


This list for me is also somewhat of a spiritual successor to the old 
backstage list which I also learned a lot from; it'd be a shame if it went 
away.




___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Peter S Kirk]

Top posting.

Ready made OT chat group here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rover800chat/

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
rover800chat-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

To change settings via email:
rover800chat-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
rover800chat-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rover800chat-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

On 16 May 2016 at 19:32, David Woodhouse David Woodhouse 
 wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote:
> > 
> > Stop the OT poltical campainging posts:
> > "Over 275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC
> > independent"
> > 
> > List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY.
> > 
> > Respect that and take politics elsewhere.
> 
> I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour censorship
> as a solution to anything.
> 
> However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for
> offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the
> forums.
> 
> Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better
> off shutting it down entirely?
> 
> Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org - if development is
> happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is
> there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of
> perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that there's a fairly
> capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue
> to provide...
>  
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 
> 
> 



___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Owen Smith]

This is indeed the "modern" way to do replies, and email clients like my iPad 
make it very hard work to do anything else. But the argument against this is 
that someone seeing it fresh (eg. CC an extra recipient) has to read the entire 
email backwards (bottom to top) to get the context.

25 years ago you always replied to emails by adding your text to the bottom, or 
replying inline in the quotes, and email clients expected it to be done that 
way. I'm not entirely sure when this changed, but I get the feeling Microsoft 
had a lot to do with it.

-- 
Owen Smith 
Cambridge, UK

> On 16 May 2016, at 20:38, tellyaddict  wrote:
> 
> I don't think that was quite what Dennis meant. Obviously a reply like you've 
> just done needs to be done in that way to make any sense.
> 
> I was taught when I first started using this list that you were supposed to 
> post new replies at the top of the email with the message you are replying to 
> underneath.
> 
> I also find it harder to read messages that are sent to the list where the 
> old message is at the top with the reply underneath. When you reply to any 
> other email, the person replying will usually put their response at the top 
> with the old responses underneath so it makes sense to me to do the same here.
> 
>> I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have
>> been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn,
>> at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the
>> reader then has to guess which reply was to which point.
> 
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Alan Milewczyk]

On 16/05/16 20:25, Shevek wrote:
I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have 
been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn, 
at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the 
reader then has to guess which reply was to which point. 

+1


A

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[tellyaddict]

I don't think that was quite what Dennis meant. Obviously a reply like you've 
just done needs to be done in that way to make any sense.

I was taught when I first started using this list that you were supposed to 
post new replies at the top of the email with the message you are replying to 
underneath.

I also find it harder to read messages that are sent to the list where the old 
message is at the top with the reply underneath. When you reply to any other 
email, the person replying will usually put their response at the top with the 
old responses underneath so it makes sense to me to do the same here.

> I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have
> been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn,
> at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the
> reader then has to guess which reply was to which point.

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Paul Malpass]

Apologies but I don't understand the semantics at play with the list but I've 
subscribed for a few years and find it immensely useful. An answer is always 
there when I need it so I thank all who maintain the code.


Paul

> On 16 May 2016, at 20:25, SquarePenguin  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 16/05/2016 20:14, Dennis Smith wrote:
>> Forum? What forum? Is that a web forum that doesn't email everything
>> to me? No thanks.
> 
> We do actually have email subscription options for all threads on the
> forum[0], but only receive, not reply.
> 
> I looked at implementing reply by email but it was a faff and this list
> exists so figured it would satisfy those who like to do things by email.
> 
> The list and the forums satisfy very different sets of users, many who
> might think the other is mad for using one option and not the other! :-)
> 
> As such I hope this list does stay as I mentioned in another reply.
> 
> SP
> 
> [0] https://squarepenguin.co.uk/forums/announcement-4.html
> 
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[SquarePenguin]

On 16/05/2016 20:14, Dennis Smith wrote:
> Forum? What forum? Is that a web forum that doesn't email everything
> to me? No thanks.

We do actually have email subscription options for all threads on the
forum[0], but only receive, not reply.

I looked at implementing reply by email but it was a faff and this list
exists so figured it would satisfy those who like to do things by email.

The list and the forums satisfy very different sets of users, many who
might think the other is mad for using one option and not the other! :-)

As such I hope this list does stay as I mentioned in another reply.

SP

[0] https://squarepenguin.co.uk/forums/announcement-4.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Shevek]

On 16 May 2016 at 20:14, Dennis Smith  wrote:
>
> Also could people make the posts more legible for current
> mail applications and post replies at the top.

sorry, but you are completely wrong here.

top posting on a list like this makes for illegible replies

> Other methods of
> posting are no longer supported in email clients any more.

Utter rubbish

> It's many
> time easier to read with an uptodate client that displays email in
> threaded view.

You presume everybody reads email like you do

> If the reply isn't at the top, I don't read it, life is
> too short for jumbled up illogical replies.

I guess you won't be reading these replies then, all of which have
been nicely spaced out and responded to each of your points in turn,
at the relevant point, instead of all in one go at the top where the
reader then has to guess which reply was to which point.


Which method is jumbled up??

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Roger Bell_West]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 07:32:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better
>off shutting it down entirely?

I'd rather have the list, as a set of forums is just another place for
me to forget to look at. Email can be filtered and prioritised and
sorted in a useful way.

(Yeah, I know, The Kids Today don't believe that. But they've grown up
with horrible interfaces to their mail, so it's no wonder.)

There are certain posters who only seem to contribute to off-topic
threads, and I have them killfiled.

R

___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[SquarePenguin]

On 16/05/2016 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better
> 
> off shutting it down entirely?

I know that there are several people who can't/won't join/access the
forums and rely on this list for announcements/assistance.

No doubt those several represent many more silent lurkers so I would say
there is certainly a benefit to this list.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Alan Milewczyk]

On 16/05/16 19:32, David Woodhouse wrote:


However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for
offtopic crap
Hardly "mostly", just taking a snap sample from the first half of this 
month, if we ignore this thread, there have been about 40 posts and only 
3 or 4 which I would class as OT.


Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better
off shutting it down entirely?
Yes and no, respectively. This is a far friendlier/more accessible list 
than the other option with better more in depth threads and I for one 
would be sad to lose it.


A


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer

Re: Offtopic noise: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a...

[Owen Smith]

I don't follow the forums, and I don't use get_iplayer often. But when I do I'm 
moderately up to date with the current situation thanks to this list.

If the list stopped I'd probably stop using get_iplayer and turn to other means 
for the occasional programme I want on iPlayer.

-- 
Owen Smith 
Cambridge, UK

> On 16 May 2016, at 19:32, David Woodhouse  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 00:38 +0100, Peter S Kirk wrote:
>> 
>> Stop the OT poltical campainging posts:
>> "Over 275,000 of us signed an emergency petition to keep the BBC
>> independent"
>> 
>> List is for GiP discussion and help ONLY.
>> 
>> Respect that and take politics elsewhere.
> 
> I have barred that thread, although I don't generally favour censorship
> as a solution to anything.
> 
> However... it seems that this list is mostly used these days for
> offtopic crap, and for technical queries which get referred to the
> forums.
> 
> Is there still a benefit to having this list at all? Would we be better
> off shutting it down entirely?
> 
> Likewise the git repository on git.infradead.org — if development is
> happening on github, there's no point in just mirroring it here, is
> there? I was happy to provide services (and even try to learn a bit of
> perl) when Phil Lewis bowed out, but it now seems that there's a fairly
> capable community around it and it's not clear what benefit I continue
> to provide...
>  
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 
> 
> ___
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer


___
get_iplayer mailing list
get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer