Who maintains ruby-talk?
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how can i add tones to my pc's sound card
Next: Undefined method `ire' with rubygems on mswin32
From: Seebs on 14 Apr 2010 13:11 On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I notice you both have email addresses from hosts I'm not familiar with, > perhaps they don't group posts into threads, so you get hit with about ten > times as many messages as I do. That would be frustrating. Hosts are not what group posts into threads. Mail clients are. Ignoring the bandwidth cost because you don't see it is not totally rational. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: jonty on 14 Apr 2010 13:27 I have just rescanned my ruby-talk inbox folder - I can't see any'off topic' threads, what do you mean by off-topic? There is a wide variety of discussions, many of which I feel free to ignore but because there is no further filtering I often find myself drawn in to an interesting discussion that improves my programming practice. Are you being a little narrow minded?
From: Robert Dober on 14 Apr 2010 13:41 On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:27 PM, jonty <jontyjont(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > I have just rescanned my ruby-talk inbox folder - I can't see any'off topic' > threads, > > what do you mean by off-topic? > > There is a wide variety of discussions, many of which I feel free to ignore > but because there is no further filtering I often find myself drawn in to an > interesting discussion that improves my programming practice. > > Are you being a little narrow minded? > > I feel that you are unfair here, it might come as a surprise to some but I am actually with Tony here. Kind of self protection, because in a free list it is me who has to decide if someone is a troll, in distress or not. Sometimes I also decide to make a joke because I feel the list is just boring. If it were moderated I would not need to make those decisions, in the first place and I would not see gross language anymore neither. Ok I agree that we will lose something, but maybe this something should be elsewhere. As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not. But I am very much interested in arguments here, maybe I idealize what I do not really know: A moderated list. Thaughts? Cheers R. -- Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous. --- Confucius
From: Robert Dober on 14 Apr 2010 13:43 On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Robert Dober <robert.dober(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh BTW, sorry for reposting, but wouldn't there be a possibility of eating our cake *and* having it? I was thinking about a moderated sublist generated by some humble "moderator" who would act as a filter? R.
From: Josh Cheek on 14 Apr 2010 13:53
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I notice you both have email addresses from hosts I'm not familiar with, > > perhaps they don't group posts into threads, so you get hit with about > ten > > times as many messages as I do. That would be frustrating. > > Hosts are not what group posts into threads. Mail clients are. > Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean that gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads out and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at all. If your _client_ ;) didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam your inbox. Or maybe we're talking about something other than lots of long posts about boids and ruids in a small number of threads? If so, I think the people calling for moderation need to clarify specifically what their issue is. Ignoring the bandwidth cost because you don't see it is not totally > rational. > > Is email bandwidth even an issue these days? I stream all of my music, all day. Pretty sure one minute of streaming music exceeds an entire month's worth of emails (assuming no attachments). Though it's not an issue if you do it online, anyway, because the emails just sit on a server somewhere, they wouldn't affect bandwidth unless you went to view them. |