Searching \ for '[OT] Vote: should [WOT] topics be banned from [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/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Vote: should [WOT] topics be banned from [OT]'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Vote: should [WOT] topics be banned from [OT]'
2007\12\07@080959 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
This is not an official vote, just a poll.

I vote yes that it should be banned.

2007\12\07@083440 by Rolf

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> This is not an official vote, just a poll.
>
> I vote yes that it should be banned.
>  
And I abstain on that issue, but vote that Apptech change his e-mail
name alias back to Russell....

I am tired of having to search twice through my e-mails to find all
those fascinating [WOT] emails that used to come from this Kiwi called
Russell, but now appear to come from Apptech. I never know which name to
search on.

Come on, that is far more important to resolve. Who is this Apptech
chap, and what has he done to Russell?

Rolf

2007\12\07@085957 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 7, 2007 9:09 PM, Xiaofan Chen <spam_OUTxiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> This is not an official vote, just a poll.
>
> I vote yes that it should be banned.
>

Ok, no need to vote. I think I lose.

Xiaofan

2007\12\07@143327 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> And I abstain on that issue, but vote that Apptech change
> his e-mail
> name alias back to Russell....

> I am tired of having to search twice through my e-mails to
> find all
> those fascinating [WOT] emails that used to come from this
> Kiwi called
> Russell, but now appear to come from Apptech. I never know
> which name to
> search on.

> Come on, that is far more important to resolve. Who is
> this Apptech
> chap, and what has he done to Russell?
>
> Rolf

Actually done with reason.

It was done to reduce my searchable web profile over the
last while :-) - sounds like it worked. I can probably
change it back as some stage.


       Russell

2007\12\07@163449 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> This is not an official vote, just a poll.
>
> I vote yes that it should be banned.

Since Russell is the only one who (more or less) consistently uses the WOT
marker, and I generally miss his posts when he has work to do, I would vote
"no" if I voted.

But before I vote, I'd like to know what you consider WOT posts. According
to the list FAQ, OT covers pretty much everything that is allowed and not
covered by any of the other topic tags. So wot's WOT?

Gerhard

2007\12\07@164242 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 19:33 -0200, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> > This is not an official vote, just a poll.
> >
> > I vote yes that it should be banned.
>
> Since Russell is the only one who (more or less) consistently uses the WOT
> marker, and I generally miss his posts when he has work to do, I would vote
> "no" if I voted.
>
> But before I vote, I'd like to know what you consider WOT posts. According
> to the list FAQ, OT covers pretty much everything that is allowed and not
> covered by any of the other topic tags. So wot's WOT?

I agree. What's the difference between WOT and OT? What about WWOT? OT
is OT, I don't really see how any sort of line could be agreed as
"correct" as to what denotes WOT and what is OT.

About the only thing WOT would do is create dozens of threads discussion
whether a particular topic is OT, or should it be WOT? We have enough
confusion with EE.

Just my two cents.

TTYL

2007\12\07@181153 by Peter P.

picon face
> I vote yes that it should be banned.

Would that not remove some of your postings ?

Peter


2007\12\07@185925 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> I vote yes that it should be banned.

> Would that not remove some of your postings ?


       Wot?


:-)


       R


2007\12\07@190031 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:

> I agree. What's the difference between WOT and OT?

I'm not sure, but I think Russell does a good job of
making the distinction.  WOT is perhaps things not at
all related to the technical community.  So using
recent posts, the "another land" piracy stuff was
only [OT], and the "sperm donor" stuff was [WOT]

BillW

2007\12\07@202339 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 8, 2007 7:10 AM, Peter P. <.....plpeter2006KILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I vote yes that it should be banned.
>
> Would that not remove some of your postings ?
>

Yes it will remove some the postings. And that is not a problem.

I firmly believe this will be good for PIClist. But since the list
admins do not care, why should I?

Xiaofan

2007\12\07@202921 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 8, 2007 5:33 AM, Gerhard Fiedler <listsspamKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> But before I vote, I'd like to know what you consider WOT posts. According
> to the list FAQ, OT covers pretty much everything that is allowed and not
> covered by any of the other topic tags. So wot's WOT?

The problem is that what is allowed and what is not. There is no clear
distinction. I will consider some [WOT] posts inappropriate in a mainly
technology related list. But if the list admins consider them appropriate,
I can cope with it.

Xiaofan

2007\12\07@213437 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 7, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> The problem is that what is allowed and what
> is not. There is no clear distinction.

I believe James' distinction is that the only thing
not allowed is topics that have shown themselves to
result in more "fire" and less "light" in the history
of the network.  Thus there are certain topics that
are forbidden based on their history, while other
topics that would seem not so far removed are OK as
long as they don't transition to one of the forbidden
topics (so the "sperm donor" discussion is OK as an
example of law (and its practice) not keeping up with
technology/society, but would get banned if it drifted
too far in the direction of "morality of homosexuality.")

BillW

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...