2009/6/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
(I simply can't resist . . .)
Glad to see you back Jed.
Alexander Hollins wrote:
One, generally, reffering to someone in the third person when they are in
the room, as it were, is considered rude.
Indeed. And how would you qualify taking
3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.Better is a rule of thumb, politics
should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't
causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to
go to B.
Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets to
be too much without
From John Berry:
My follow-up thoughts placed between yours:
3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.
Well... that is what is being questioned here. Would it really? I
dunnno. Mr. Beaty, can you let us know your thoughts on the matter?
Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed
From Ed Storm:
My follow-up thoughts dispersed between Ed's:
I agree with John, managing and contributing to
one list is hard enough without adding to the
problem by using multiple lists. Most people on
this list are adults and should be able to agree
on something so simple as when
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem
Basically, you want to add a branch of vortex turning it into
something it never was intended to be, as a way of preventing what was
never intended to be posted to be posted? I dunno, seems kinda
skeevy.
Personally, I'd suggest just making a discussion forum instead of an
email list, but i
:
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem by using
Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?
pro, very pro
: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
something so simple as when political or religious discussion
On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list
From Alexander and Ed:
Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be
handled without Bill having to get involved at all.
Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
stop
because if its ot, its NOT relevant, and because if you dont like
certain people, or the things they say, you should be an adult and
just ignore all posts from them
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Alexander and Ed:
Sorry, you are absolutely
While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best
discussed in private with the people who are interested. I suggest if
a a subject comes up that is not of general interest, the people who
would like to explore the idea further make their wish known so that
the discussion
From Alexander:
because if its ot, its NOT relevant, and because if
you dont like certain people, or the things they say,
you should be an adult and just ignore all posts from
them
In theory, I agree with you 100%. Adults should simply ignore
troll-bait posts. However, when dealing with
From Ed:
While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best discussed
in private with the people who are interested. I suggest if a a subject
comes up that is not of general interest, the people who would like to
explore the idea further make their wish known so that the
: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.
From Alexander and Ed:
Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be
handled without Bill having to get involved at all.
Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
And at this point, this part
From Lawrence de Bivort:
Or, one could run VoB by the rules you are proposing for VoT,
and not run any list at all for trolls posters.
Agreed. In fact, I had first considered this option before coming up
with the controversial suggestion of creating yet another Vort list,
the [VoT] group. One
Agreed. If there is a general will to ban trolls from our discussions, why
feel obligated to provide them with a list of their own?
Clearly, there is a desire to have a list that is able to go beyond specific
science and research discussions--and VoB, troll-less, could be readily used
for this
For reasons too complicated to explain, it would be easier for me to
modify the message heading with some sort of code, rather than to
redirect messages to another list. I mean a code such as [OFF TOPIC]
or [OT] or [POLITICS] or what-have-you.
Alexander Hollins should be aware that this list
I suggest a public discussion stops when anyone objects. Following the
objection, anyone who wishes to continue the discussion privately can
make their wish known publicly. These people would be put on the cc of
the private exchange. If no one makes such a request, the discussion
stops.
would rather treat
him
as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him.
Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating
Good idea Ed.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
I suggest a public discussion stops when anyone objects. Following the
objection, anyone who wishes to continue the discussion privately can make
their wish known publicly. These people would be put on the
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM, John Berryaethe...@gmail.com wrote:
AGREED!
I object! :-)
Terry
Everything about the list says it was intended to discuss SCIENCE.
One, generally, reffering to someone in the third person when they are
in the room, as it were, is considered rude.
Two, most water always includes impurities. does this mean that
distilling water is turning water into something
From Alexander Hollins:
Everything about the list says it was intended to discuss SCIENCE.
It seems to me that science -is- discussed here.
In addition to pure science I think many of us would also like
vortex-l to continue to include discussions concerning the politics
behind why science is
(I simply can't resist . . .)
Alexander Hollins wrote:
One, generally, reffering to someone in the third person when they are in
the room, as it were, is considered rude.
Hollins will have to get used to being referred to in the third person,
because Rothwell often does this, and has even
27 matches
Mail list logo
