Searching \ for '[OT] Too OT?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=too
Search entire site for: 'Too OT?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Too OT?'
2005\05\31@082657 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Politics? - I don't think so.
> <blah, blah, blah>

I enabled OT a while ago because I noticed sometimes there were some
interesting technical discussions there.  Some were a little past [EE],
while others should have been [EE] and were mistagged.  This list is of
course primarily about PICs, but useful discussion of PIC will naturally
include the circuits around them and the systems and technologies they are
embedded in.  I think it makes sense to have the [PIC] and [EE] topics.
That leaves any remaining technical discussion of the broader embedded
systems and their technologies in the great unwashed realm of [OT].
Unfortunately [OT] is overrun with way too much stuff that has absolutely
nothing to do with PICs or embedded systems.  Is there some way to
participate in the broader PIC/embedded/technology discussions without
having to wade thru all the pointless and tedious political/religious rants?

I can understand a thread occasionally wandering off topic, perhaps even
slightly into the political or religious on rare occasions.  That's normal
human nature.  Each poster only changes the subject a little bit, so the
whole thread wanders without anyone really being much at fault.  Most of the
time the thread would die on its own, or sometimes an admin might need to
step in and ask people to stop.  (Hopefully this can be done politely
without shouting or saying "nn WARNING".  The presumption should be that it
was not deliberate until deomonstrated otherwise.)

However, what irks me is when these kinds of threads are deliberately
started.  The one from Russel this morning is a case in point.  Hopefully
people won't take the bait and start another lengthy pointless discussion.
But alas, I expect that the troll will be well fed once again.

The previous case started with an inappropriate signature line that clearly
was meant to make a political or religious statement.  Most everyone here
either ignored it or didn't even notice (the latter for me).  But
unfortunately it takes only one to light the spark.  A lengthy deliberate
message was launched just on that issues, then it went on.  And on and on
and on.

What's the answer?  Well I guess the current answer is "Too bad, that's OT".
Is everyone comfortable with that?  I think there are better solutions.  I
suggest the following:

1 - Broaden the definition of the [EE] topic to include the greater embedded
systems the PIC is in and their technology.  I think most people who are
interested in PICs and the circuits surrounding them would also be
interested in the systems and technology surrounding the circuits.

2 - Failing #1, create a new topic [EMB] or [TECH] for discussion of what #1
would have added to [EE].

3 - Absolutely positively not allow discussion of religion, or politics that
has nothing to do with PICs, embedded systems, or their technology.
Political advocacy is strictly prohibited in any case.  This goes for
signature lines or any other part of a message, since those have been shown
to start such discussions.

I'm sorry this post adds to the noise, but at least it is about the list and
it is about trying to resolve something that is within the capability of the
people here to resolve.

2005\05\31@094224 by Mike Hord

picon face
> However, what irks me is when these kinds of threads are deliberately
> started.  The one from Russel this morning is a case in point.  Hopefully
> people won't take the bait and start another lengthy pointless discussion.
> But alas, I expect that the troll will be well fed once again.

I guess I haven't "participated" in the online community as much as many
of the others here (over the years, at least), but I feel as though very
little "trolling" occurs here.  I rarely see truly uncivil discussion.

{Quote hidden}

I like this idea.  For example, the walking logging tractor from a few days
ago would go well in a [TECH] label.

> 3 - Absolutely positively not allow discussion of religion, or politics that
> has nothing to do with PICs, embedded systems, or their technology.
> Political advocacy is strictly prohibited in any case.  This goes for
> signature lines or any other part of a message, since those have been shown
> to start such discussions.

Right now, James and the other admins do a fairly good job of stomping
out any smoldering embers in those long running, "and-another-thing"
type "discussions".  I'd also like to say that I appreciate many of
the discussions of the sort that spawned the post I'm now responding
to.  I feel like they expose me to things happening in the "outside
world" that I otherwise would have missed.  And frankly, one of the
things I get here that I wouldn't elsewhere is the input of people who
have a similar mental map to mine (engineers), and who, on the whole,
seem to be damn decent people.

To put it another way, what do *you* talk about with your friends?  If
you never discuss anything but engineering, that's fine, but some of
us like to discuss other things with our friends.

> I'm sorry this post adds to the noise, but at least it is about the list and
> it is about trying to resolve something that is within the capability of the
> people here to resolve.

I get the feeling a LOT more noise will be soon forthcoming...

Mike H.

2005\05\31@102827 by Ben Hencke

picon face
I'm all in favor of officially adding the WOT tag so that people can
subscribe or unsubscribe to it.

[OT]: anything OT and having to do with tech/engineering (like the
steam engine thing)
[WOT]: anything OT and non tech (darwinism vs creationism, politics, rants)

I enjoy most of the [OT] posts. The [WOT] posts are way too off topic
for my interests.

$1/50
- Ben


On 5/31/05, Olin Lathrop <spam_OUTolin_piclistTakeThisOuTspamembedinc.com> wrote:
>  Hopefully
> people won't take the bait and start another lengthy pointless discussion.
> But alas, I expect that the troll will be well fed once again.

Thats kind of like the pot calling the kettle black ;-)

2005\05\31@115648 by Bob Blick

face picon face
On 31 May 2005 at 8:27, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > Politics? - I don't think so.
> > <blah, blah, blah>

This is a subject where Olin and I are in complete agreement (Hi
Olin!).

Imagine for a second that you get the piclist in digest form. You
have no ability to choose a filter. You get everything whether you
want it or not.

In the past I suggested either restricting OT to totally OT or
forcing anything slightly tech to EE.

I no longer feel that way. If there's no way to filter out OT from
the digest, we have only one choice - get rid of OT altogether.

Get rid of OT altogether.

Russell, you can get a channel on blogspot and your fans can join you
there.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2005\05\31@121023 by John Ferrell

face picon face
The OT category helps keep the other areas filtered. Kind of like talking in
the break room...
You Might miss something you want by dumping the OT but that comes with the
filter.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\05\31@121142 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I'll reply to this post as it covers most of the others on the
subject.

Olin Olinated:

> I enabled OT a while ago because I noticed ...

>This list is of course primarily about PICs,

Surprisingly (perhaps) I think not. I think its (arguably) about
electronics with a PIC microporocessor bias and a good dollop of
related technology. (Also a lesser dollop of unrelated technology).
Not meaning to be PICcy (groan) but I think it's important to stake
out the coe ground appropriately. Despite the "PIClist" name it
fundamentally encompasses the above.

> I think it makes sense to have the [PIC] and [EE] topics.
> That leaves any remaining technical discussion of the broader
> embedded
> systems and their technologies in the great unwashed realm of [OT].

Agree.

> Unfortunately [OT] is overrun with way too much stuff that has
> absolutely
> nothing to do with PICs or embedded systems.

Agree only partially.
I think it would be a great shame to "noise up" EE tag with non
electronic material.

I would greatly love to see a greater number of tags. I have suggested
such on a number of past occasions but James has been, so far, happy
with where what we have so far. I must admit to being completely
unable to understand the reasons he gives. (No rudeness intended -
statement of fact).  I would like to see a [WOT] (or equivalent) tag
and a [TECH] tag. Tech gets the steam engines, walking loggers,
trebuchets, Mars missions, moholes, balloons, rockets or whatever.
Whether PC's and Pascal and languages in general and similar go in
TECH or EE is TBD. OT maybe all that is needed for whats left but if
one wants to distinguish then WOT still excludes hard core religion,
politics and sex, profanity, rudeness flames etc. It allows eg my
carefully considered "they came for the innocents but I wasn't an
innocent :-) so I did nothing" Corby post. It allows evolution
discussions as long as they are not eg principally religious rants.
[Some won't, apparently, be able to tell the difference].

I'm not sure that adding tags imposes any real extra load on the long
suffering already overworked admins. While there are undoubtedly extra
duties incurred it should lighten the misposting under PIC load which
seems to be James' main bugbear (possibly due to unseen complaints
from other list members who specialise in PIC tag.

We then have

PIC    AVR
EE
TECH
OT
WOT

> Is there some way to
> participate in the broader PIC/embedded/technology discussions
> without
> having to wade thru all the pointless and tedious
> political/religious rants?

I think that there have been few such recently. You may perhaps have
mistaken the recent teaching science / origins discussion as one such.
One would need to follow th thread to see the difefrence (and some
can't tell the differenc eanyway :-) ).

> However, what irks me is when these kinds of threads are
> deliberately
> started.  The one from Russel this morning is a case in point.
> Hopefully
> people won't take the bait and start another lengthy pointless
> discussion.
> But alas, I expect that the troll will be well fed once again.

You've given it breakfast :-).
But that was a fairly rare one even for me. A very great injustice has
been done. It has nothing at all to do with PICs but lots to do with
people who would like to be able to travel the world without the
expectation of ending up in some 3rd world jail for life because the
meaning of justice is completely understaood where they happened to go
on holiday.

{Quote hidden}

All that is more or less true. But the discussion that went on and on
was a derivative of the original, was NOT about the original subject
per se, but was a legitimate spinoff thereof, matched the subject line
well and dealt with an utterly essential area of scientific endeavour.
It had by no means been beaten to death when James moved to shut it
down because, as far as I can see, several people were trolling with
provocative unrelated anti religious statements aimed at pushing other
people into contentious areas, which had nothing to do with the actual
conversation,. Pookie, you should know better by now - no loaves and
fishes for you this week !!!.

> What's the answer?  Well I guess the current answer is "Too bad,
> that's OT".

Thjat's been James' answer so far. I'd like a new tag or two fwiw (not
much so far).

{Quote hidden}

The above 2 failt o address the Trebuchets, walking loggers etc which
need a home. TECH would be fine for them and most other stuff in OT
canstay there.

> 3 - Absolutely positively not allow discussion of religion, or
> politics that
> has nothing to do with PICs, embedded systems, or their technology.
> Political advocacy is strictly prohibited in any case.

This has been thrashed out repeatedly and the indication has always
been that people want a measure of this to be allowed.

> This goes for signature lines or any other part of a message, since
> those have been shown
> to start such discussions.

Again, sig lines so far have been deemed to allow personal expression.

> I'm sorry this post adds to the noise, but at least it is about the
> list and
> it is about trying to resolve something that is within the
> capability of the
> people here to resolve.

Add TECH, Add WOT redefine usage of all categories, done ... :-)


       RM

2005\05\31@122857 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>OT maybe all that is needed for whats left but if one wants to
>distinguish then WOT still excludes hard core religion, politics and
>sex, profanity, rudeness flames etc. It allows eg my carefully
>considered "they came for the innocents but I wasn't an innocent :-)
>so I did nothing" Corby post. It allows evolution discussions as
>long as they are not eg principally religious rants. [Some won't,
>apparently, be able to tell the difference].

I would suggest making "WOT" off by default for new subscribers, and
"no bitching" about the content as a rule.
You signed up for it Fred, and you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
Bonus points if you can identify the source of the above line.

2005\05\31@123830 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I no longer feel that way.

I wouldn't have dreamed of doubting that that would be the case :-(.

> If there's no way to filter out OT from
> the digest, we have only one choice - get rid of OT altogether.

Serious suggestion. It should be relatively easy to write something
that inputs a digest and removes selected material with given tags or
subject lines (or posters ! :-) ). If this capability isn't available
already it should be valued by others as well. Not an area where I
have substantial competence - is anyone else able to say how easy this
would be to do?


       RM


'[OT] Too OT?'
2005\06\01@002656 by Robert Rolf
picon face
Given that the new mailman interface makes adding additional
topic tags fairly painless for the admins, may I second,
vote and pass the motion that [WOT] be added as an acceptable tag.
There is a lot of 'good stuff' in OT but I too could do without
some of the politics that should rightly go in WOT.
Fortunately the delete he is easily found.

Ben Hencke wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Yes, but it's often interesting to see which boils first <G>.

Robert
(who runs [not admins] a few mailman lists on our local server)


2005\06\01@013509 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>... may I second, vote and pass the motion that [WOT] be added as an
>acceptable tag.

No. No way.
But, regardless, I third your motion and amend it and second and pass
the amendment that we also add TECH aswell.
All those in favour say "aye"
All James's against say "naye".
The nayes have it.



       RM

2005\06\01@030718 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> [add WOT] No. No way.
> But, regardless, I third your motion and amend it and second and pass
> the amendment that we also add TECH aswell.
> All those in favour say "aye"
> All James's against say "naye".
> The nayes have it.

I don't see a difference between OT and WOT. Something is on-topic or
not, if not it can't be 'more notter' than any other topic.

But changing EE to Everything Engineering seems like a perfect and
practical solution to me.

And I do support the policy that politics and religion should not be on
the list, not even as OT or WOT.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\06\01@062410 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> But changing EE to Everything Engineering seems like a perfect and
> practical solution to me.

Why not put them in PIC and noise that up, instead of noising up EE ?
Seems like a perfect and practical solution to me.
Not.
Of course.

Your solution is neither perfect or even especially practical. I fail
to see what you gain by it and I fail to see what's wrong with another
tag that suits technology.

It would make more sense to, almost equally arbitrarily, move the TECH
material into the very little used AVR tag or, more logically,  delete
AVR and replace it with TECH, if the number of tags is an issue, and
move AVR subjects into either PIC or EE. That would make more sense
than mixing ballistas, bolometers, electrocardiograms, epidemics,
weston cells, western blotting, galvanometers, gallup polls,
densitomers, dulcimers and more.

> And I do support the policy that politics and religion should not be
> on
> the list, not even as OT or WOT.

That, of course, is standard policy, and has been since time
immemorial, along with sex (doesn't stop James violently breaking his
own prohibition)(lie to me that it aint so :-) ), racism, rudeness and
a few others. I don't think there has been any well canvassed
suggestion that this should change. Maybe the odd well meaning remark
made by people who are not fully aware of the scope of OT.



       RM

2005\06\01@082438 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but since it may produce something useful I'll add my Yes
vote to the idea of having a TECH tag, being about things technical, engineering or scientific that may be of
interest to denizens of this place (Solar Power, Walking Tractors, that sort of thing) but which are not
specifically PIC or EE.  It would be limited to facts about things and discussions thereof, not discussions of
the opinions about those subjects (nothing even faintly religious / philosophical / opinion-based, like the
social implications of a walking tractor on poor chainsaw operators, no evolution or scientific method or
whatever).

The problem I see with having WOT is that the line between it and OT would be difficult even to define, let
alone decide when considering posting, so there would be endless discussions of whether a post was correctly
tagged, to the detriment of actual-content posts.  Perhaps there should be a ban on discussions of tagging
except by the moderators?  It's their show, so maybe they should have the only, not just the last, say?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\06\01@083209 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:07:17 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> And I do support the policy that politics and religion should not be on
> the list, not even as OT or WOT.

Indeed, not even the politics and religion of science and engineering!

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\06\01@095227 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On 5/31/05, Robert Rolf <Robert.RolfspamKILLspamualberta.ca> wrote:
> Given that the new mailman interface makes adding additional
> topic tags fairly painless for the admins,

Just so everyone is clear, it's not quite that simple for the PICList.
We have archiving and other things running on the piclist.com server
that would have to be recoded to accomodate the new tag and rules.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just not a 2 second change to
Mailman. We are talking about it though.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

2005\06\01@101334 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:07:17AM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > [add WOT] No. No way.
> > But, regardless, I third your motion and amend it and second and pass
> > the amendment that we also add TECH aswell.
> > All those in favour say "aye"
> > All James's against say "naye".
> > The nayes have it.
>
> I don't see a difference between OT and WOT. Something is on-topic or
> not, if not it can't be 'more notter' than any other topic.

Olin's argument was that some PIC/Engineering posts are mislabled as OT.
By having [WOT] or [NT] ("Non Tech" as I called it), then there would be
a separation between Tech stuff and Non Tech Stuff. In short while someone
may post a borderline EE/OT post in OT, no one would post a borderline post
in NT. Especially someone new to the list.

> But changing EE to Everything Engineering seems like a perfect and
> practical solution to me.

At the end of the day it's only a nomenclature change. EE to Everything
Engineering only make sense to those who have participated in the list
discussion. To anyone walking it it'll still be Electrical Engineering.
And OT is well established as Off Topic.

So OT and EE are too well established to arbitarily change. Adding a new
channel with no preset semantic context means that the likelyhood of a
mislabled post goes down immensely.

Olin had two points: Some mislabled posts end up in OT and...

> And I do support the policy that politics and religion should not be on
> the list, not even as OT or WOT.

which is all over the spectrum from what I read. Some don't want it. Some
tolerate it. Some find it interesting. I'm pretty sure Russell is in a
singular catgory. There's no consensus. Personally I have seen some
thoughtful discussions that would not have been created anywhere else.

But for non-digest readers it should be a moot point as if it's not being
mailed to you, then it doesn't exist. So getting back to the original point
simply by separating real OT stuff into another category, anyone who isn't
interested can unsubscribe from it. In fact if possible when one registers
one should be unsubscribed by default and have to opt into that channel.
It solves Olin's original request without having to censor Russell or anyone
else.

The digest is a separate issue. But the technology to "channelize" the
digest is on the table.

My feeling is that since there is no consensus from the membership that we
bring technology to bear so that everyone gets what they wants.

BAJ

2005\06\01@102439 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>Perhaps there should be a ban on discussions of tagging
> except by the moderators?  It's their show, so maybe they should
> have the only, not just the last, say?

There already is :-).
Doesn't stop discussions though.
There is no voting.
James is a Mack truck (or maybe that's a HumVee).



       RM

2005\06\01@103950 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> And I do support the policy that politics and religion should not
>> be on
>> the list, not even as OT or WOT.

> Indeed, not even the politics and religion of science and
> engineering!

That I disagree with. As you'd expect.
My point is, if we don't understand that what we call science is often
times in fact unsupportable opinion, and in all other cases
circumstantially supportable opinion, then we risk erring severely. By
preventing discussion on such things we become culpable for the
atrocities committed in the name of science by those who have little
or no understanding of the tool they wield, or that they are holding
it by the blade (or that, in some cases, it has a double ended blade
and no handles)(like C).


       RM

2005\06\01@105322 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > But changing EE to Everything Engineering seems like a perfect and
> > practical solution to me.
>
> At the end of the day it's only a nomenclature change. EE to
> Everything
> Engineering only make sense to those who have participated in the list
> discussion. To anyone walking it it'll still be Electrical
> Engineering.

Why? Change the description in the piclist.com intro page for the
newcomers, and announce it (under [PIC] :)? ) for the current members.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\06\01@114702 by alan smith

picon face
Is Jory even still subscribed and around? Haven't
heard anything from him for some time....

Could he even imagine what his baby has turned into
:-)

--- Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\06\01@115350 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:53:21PM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > > But changing EE to Everything Engineering seems like a perfect and
> > > practical solution to me.
> >
> > At the end of the day it's only a nomenclature change. EE to
> > Everything
> > Engineering only make sense to those who have participated in the list
> > discussion. To anyone walking in it'll still be Electrical
> > Engineering.
>
> Why? Change the description in the piclist.com intro page for the
> newcomers, and announce it (under [PIC] :)? ) for the current members.

Because Wouter it's the difference between thinking and knowing. It creates
the same type of dissonance you get with the classic experiment shown in
this image:

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1997/courses/1655/textcolors1.gif

Quickly go through the list and say the name of the color of each word.
You won't find it easy.

Same thing here. We can all read that EE means Everything Engineering. But
due to years of conditioning, EE will virtually automagically bring up
Electrical Engineering, no matter what it really means. It'll take a forced
effort to change the meaning.

After having read everything in this thread since Olin's comment I have
formed a final opinion:

1. Leave everything the way that it has been.

2. If you are not interested in OT subjects, then unsubscribe from it.
Mislabled posts will either be handled by someone else, transferred into the
correct topic area, or dropped. Call it an object lesson.

3. Continue to work towards channelizing digests so that OT can be
eliminated if the digest reader so desires.

One of the admins came in a stated that any changes would take work to do.
The admins already have too much work to do. Let's not give them any more.

Off Topic means Off Topic. There's wide latitude in that definition. If that
bothers you, then unsubscribe. Problem solved.

This is one case where the best thing to do is nothing. I certainly don't
think that it's worth admin time and effort. They do this job so that
you and I don't have to. We need to give that a large measure of respect.

BAJ

2005\06\01@124714 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Same thing here. We can all read that EE means Everything Engineering.
But
> due to years of conditioning, EE will virtually automagically bring up
> Electrical Engineering, no matter what it really means. It'll take a
forced
> effort to change the meaning.

For me EE is just two letters, E and E. It brings up some association
with AA (alcoholists anonymous?), that's all. I guess it's the different
language background.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\06\01@130312 by Dmitriy Kiryashov

picon face
Hi Bob.


I wouldn't agree with you.
Being narrow focused tech geek doesn't mean being smart
You got to understand and know alot of things around
you in order to be succesfull in your field. Otherwise
step left or step right and you ultimately lost. :)

I believe [OT] and [WOT] is enough to separate things.


WBR Dmitry.


Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2005\06\01@132110 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> I wouldn't agree with you.
> Being narrow focused tech geek doesn't mean being smart
> You got to understand and know alot of things around
> you in order to be succesfull in your field. Otherwise
> step left or step right and you ultimately lost. :)

Hi Dimitry,

Do you mean I must read all OT posts? If so, I will unsubscribe completely :)

Actually I think it is time to unsubscribe.

But I still pity my friends who take the digest version.

Best regards,

Bob



2005\06\01@140716 by Dmitriy Kiryashov

picon face
Hi Bob.

Old saying.
It is not good to keep yourself way too left or way too right
because tomorrow what was left may have become right and vise
versa. There is golden middle somewhere in between...

Anyway I'm closing my participation in this conversation.
( James don't shoot at mee yet :)


WBR Dmitry.




Bob Blick wrote:

> Do you mean I must read all OT posts?
> If so, I will unsubscribe completely :)
> Actually I think it is time to unsubscribe.
> But I still pity my friends who take the digest version.
> Best regards,
> Bob

2005\06\01@152412 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:21:10AM -0700, Bob Blick wrote:
> > I wouldn't agree with you.
> > Being narrow focused tech geek doesn't mean being smart
> > You got to understand and know alot of things around
> > you in order to be succesfull in your field. Otherwise
> > step left or step right and you ultimately lost. :)
>
> Hi Dimitry,
>
> Do you mean I must read all OT posts?
> If so, I will unsubscribe completely :)

I agree. Personally I use a mail tool that makes it trivial to delete
entire threads. I think that's one reason why stuff in OT doesn't bother
me too much.

> Actually I think it is time to unsubscribe.

Please reconsider. I welcome your presense here. You are a great contributor
to the list. Turning off OT should be sufficient for a non digest reader
such as yourself.

> But I still pity my friends who take the digest version.

Now that the issue has been brought up it should be possible to fix.

BAJ

2005\06\01@175343 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face
Not trying to be nasty, just curious.  How do y'all find the time to post
all this
stuff - especially the extremely interesting OT stuff from Russell who must
spend
several hours a day surfing for cool stuff?  Do y'all:
have jobs?
work from home?
own your businesses?
retired?
born (or married) rich?
struck the lottery?
teach?
insomnia?
psychosis?
what???

Carey


2005\06\02@025600 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Not trying to be nasty, just curious.  How do y'all find the time to
> post
> all this
> stuff - especially the extremely interesting OT stuff from Russell
> who must
> spend
> several hours a day surfing for cool stuff?

I almost never go looking for cool stuff per se - it just falls out of
Google as I search for things of interest that have some degree of
relevance to what I'm doing (be it work or play). The trick is to
recognise it as it flows past your brain.

> Do y'all:

> have jobs?
> work from home?
> own your businesses?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

> retired?

I say I have been for years. But by any normal or sensible definition
I'm not, but I can't imagine life ever being any different if I was.

> born (or married) rich?
> struck the lottery?
> teach?

No. No. Only on list :-)

> insomnia?
> psychosis?
> what???

No. Just can't tear myself away from the PC to go to bed..
Asolutely.
Definitely.


       Russell

2005\06\03@094301 by John Colonias

flavicon
face
You know, Carey, I have been wondering the same, but for some reason I
did not want to make waves.

John

{Original Message removed}

2005\06\03@095443 by Mike Hord

picon face
Occasionally, I use the StumbleUpon FireFox extension.  It takes a
random site from those submitted by users and displays it, within the
range of interests that you tell it you have.  You can then give each
site a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".  Good for finding sites you'll
use but weren't looking for, or for finding stuff that just flat weird or
funny.

Mike H.

{Quote hidden}

2005\06\03@102609 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face
John,
Well, I also own my own business (partner actually) and work from home like
Russell
but I barely have time to keep up with the postings, much less do "research"
on OT
items.  I do all electronic design, PCB layout, firmware, BoM, Assembly
Procedures,
test equipment, test procedures, supplier (CM) management, user manuals,
technical
manuals, Configuration Control, web site and probably a few other things.
Also, have to pay attention to the family (this is REAL important to me).
I'm surprised I have time to write this posting!!!!!
Carey


  > {Original Message removed}

2005\06\03@111900 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>have jobs?
>work from home?
>own your businesses?
>retired?
>born (or married) rich?
>struck the lottery?
>teach?
>insomnia?
>psychosis?

Is this multiple choice?

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...