'OT, and the tower of babble.(sic)'
I have enjoyed my brief sojourn as a subscriber to this discussion list.
Occasionally, I have even posted the odd message intended to help
someone. Regrettably, I have had to send an unsubscribe request, due to
the large volume of postings.
Many of these involve discussions of issues such as Dutch humour which
could not, even with great charity, be considered remotely relevant to
PIC microcontrollers. Sadly, this is a prevalent problem throughout the
Internet; noise levels just keep rising.
Those of you who do post such blatantly off-topic issues should consider
the day *you* would like some help. All the people who *really* know the
answers will have long gone, leaving you to converse endlessly on the
topic of Dutch humour, perhaps, but certainly not PIC microcontrollers.
I do not know if the answer to this global babble is moderated lists, or
what. Splitting lists into sub-topics fails because often it's not clear
who might be interested.
May I suggest, as an interim measure, the method adopted by radio
amateurs. Every city has one or more 'repeaters'. These accept incoming
calls on a particular frequency, amplify them and re-transmit on an
alternate frequency. It is etiquette to call CQ (who's there, in
essence) on the repeater input channel, and once contact has been made
with one or more people, move to a mutually-agreed frequency, thus
leaving the repeater free once more.
If you want to move off-topic, can't you do something similar?. In which
case, can we have an off-topic list as well; those who like to chat with
others who share an interest in PICs (say) can post to this list. For
To: discussion list
I'm having a problem with the 16C84.... blah blah blah..
btw: that reminds me of a great joke about Dutch humour. I'll post to OT
To: discussion list
I need help finding some Philips components. I'll post details to OT;
any replies to OT please.
IMHO this will reduce noise levels substantially; for example, the long
thread on atmospheric electric charges could be pursued at leisure OT.
This may well interest some of us; it would be our choice, though, as to
whether we bothered to pursue the topic.
Technically, *this* post, having raised the topic, would then say
Discussions on this to OT, please.
so if you feel I personally should be pickled in boiling oil for being
such an asshole, you can do so without subjecting the rest of the group
to the ordeal, yet you are still talking to the same potential audience.
Is this practical?
Andrew Mayo signed off with:
>IMHO this will reduce noise levels substantially; for example, the long
>thread on atmospheric electric charges could be pursued at leisure OT.
>This may well interest some of us; it would be our choice, though, as to
>whether we bothered to pursue the topic.
CHOICE is what it's all about. One man's "noise" is another man's music,
and vice versa. It ultimately boils down to this: WHO gets to decide?
Right now, you and I do. If I don't like it, I delete it. If you like it,
you read it.
That's the way it should be. Those who find this arrangement too annoying
to deal with can, do, and should leave.
Many of the more thoughtful contributors to this list are careful to use
the subject line to identify messages that are obviously OT, but nobody's
perfect. If some self-appointed list policeman wants to create a
"noiseless" list, maybe all the posts will be of such high quality that
everyone will flock to it and desert this one. Or not...
/lecture mode OFF.
Reginald Neale wrote:
> If some self-appointed list policeman wants to create a
> "noiseless" list, maybe all the posts will be of such high quality
> everyone will flock to it and desert this one. Or not...
Or that it would be so utterly boring that (nearly) no one would
subscribe to it!
> May I suggest, as an interim measure, the method adopted by radio
> amateurs. Every city has one or more 'repeaters'. These accept incoming
> calls on a particular frequency, amplify them and re-transmit on an
> alternate frequency. It is etiquette to call CQ (who's there, in
> essence) on the repeater input channel, and once contact has been made
> with one or more people, move to a mutually-agreed frequency, thus
> leaving the repeater free once more.
I've never tried it but I gather one can filter out all subjects
with "OT" in them. The folks on this group are awfully
good about adding the "OT" label. Wouldn't such a filter
do the trick for you?
I hate losing anyone because the PIC group is a pretty
good brain trust.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997
, 1998 only
- New search...