Searching \ for '[ee] Request for new comment tag (was Sober.z resp' 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=request+new+comment
Search entire site for: 'Request for new comment tag (was Sober.z resp'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[ee] Request for new comment tag (was Sober.z resp'
2005\11\28@214832 by Mark Rages

face picon face
I have a request for a new tag in the subject line.

This tag would cover the following topics:

- Windows administration questions, such as:
  - Computer viruses and anti-virus software.
  - Discussions of general purpose (not engineering) software
- Discussion about email, such as:
  - Complaints about line length
  - Flames about top-posting, bottom-feeding, and reply trimming
  - Discussion of spam, and anti-spam measures
  - Discussion about archiving
  - Discussion about email clients
  - Unsubscribe requests
- Language and platform wars
  - Windows vs. $OS flamewars
  - Discussion of C, C++, C#, or other personal computer programming languages.
  - How to obtain, install, compile, debug any general purpose (not
engineering) software
- Off-topic excursions with no novelty or currency value, such as
rehashes of USENET flamewars from fifteen years ago.

What these subjects have in common is that they are not PIC or
engineering related.

I suggest a subject tag of [TEDIUM].  That way, those of us who read
the PIClist for both engineering-related and interesting off-topic
discussions can filter out this subject matter.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
 - fortune cookie

2005\11\29@020453 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I suggest a subject tag of [TEDIUM].  

[FLAME] ?
[SKIP] ?

But seriously: unless you can think of a good one-line description I
think it is a bad idea, if only because it is terribly confusing why
those specific subjcets should not be in [OT].

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\11\29@093717 by Mike Hord

picon face
> > I suggest a subject tag of [TEDIUM].
>
> [FLAME] ?
> [SKIP] ?

May I humbly suggest browsing your mail using the Gmail
web frontend?

That entire Sober.z thread was a single click for me to bypass.
And, what's more, since it's archived, if I decide I need to see
it in the future sometime, it's there.  AND not sucking up HD
space.

I agree with the (general?) consensus that a lot of the traffic on
the PICList isn't stuff I'm interested in, but that's the cost of
"doing business" with it.  Gmail mitigates that cost quite a lot.

Mike H.

2005\11\29@100703 by Tony Smith

picon face
How about [BAH]?

When you're tired of the topic, [BAH] says it all.  Works well for the religious topics (all flavours) which only end when someone
says 'bah', grabs their ball & goes home.

Tony



> {Original Message removed}

2005\11\29@104834 by John Ferrell

face picon face
It seems to me that the existing [OT] with a dot suffix should satisfy all.
Like [OT].spam or [OT].virus or [OT].WinXP, etc...
It would only take a little effort on the part of the initial poster in
forming the subject line. Also, the quirk that causes a new message subject
to be included in the same thread might help keep things orderly.
I will try it with a fresh question in [OT]...
John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\11\29@110010 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
John wrote regarding 'Re: [ee] Request for new comment tag' on Tue, Nov 29 at 09:51:
> forming the subject line. Also, the quirk that causes a new message subject
> to be included in the same thread might help keep things orderly.
> I will try it with a fresh question in [OT]...

That's probably not a quirk - it's likely the result of someone
replying to a message and retyping the subject line rather than just
starting a new message.  Most decent mail programs keep the "in reply
to" stuff intact in the header and don't thread based on just the
subject line text.

Then again, I could be just talking out of my arse again.

--Danny

2005\11\29@132054 by M Graff

flavicon
face
Mark Rages wrote:
> I have a request for a new tag in the subject line.

I have a request that this become a more focused list, and not discuss
EVERYTHING.  It is called "piclist" and while that, in my mind at least,
stretches to other processor types, I can't for the life of me
understand why "Windows administration" possibly falls into the scope of
a microcontroller list.

Or do flames about email formatting, or PC languages...

Perhaps it is time to start new _lists_ rather than new _tags_ for
existing lists.

--Michael

2005\11\29@162057 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
Perhaps it is time for people who want a more focus list to read the list
faq and learn how to turn off the [OT] (and possibly [EE] as well) topics.

That way, they will only GET the on topic posts.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com




> {Original Message removed}

2005\11\29@175405 by John Ferrell

face picon face
After looking at the subject post in the [OT], it seems like a poor idea..
the [OT] says it all..
John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell" <.....johnferrellKILLspamspam@spam@earthlink.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ee] Request for new comment tag (was Sober.z response (lack)
from Symantec)


> It seems to me that the existing [OT] with a dot suffix should satisfy
> all.
> Like [OT].spam or [OT].virus or [OT].WinXP, etc...


2005\11\29@183741 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face

> It seems to me that the existing [OT] with a dot suffix should
> satisfy all.
> Like [OT].spam or [OT].virus or [OT].WinXP, etc...

I use [OT][WOT] for more questionable stuff.

Some appreciate this, some don't.

The otherwise admirable admin is strangely deaf to requests for a
slightly rearranged or extended tag system :-)



       RM

2005\11\29@193757 by Chen Xiao Fan

face
flavicon
face
RFC 1: What does [EE] cover in PIClist?
RFC 2: What does [OT] cover in PIClist?

James wrote:
>Perhaps it is time for people who want a more focus list to read the list
>faq and learn how to turn off the [OT] (and possibly [EE] as well) topics.
>
>That way, they will only GET the on topic posts.
>James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin

So I assume case closed and I know this is the expected answer. Just want
to clarify what does [EE] tag covers. [EE] tag is quite an important
part of PIClist. That makes it different from the Microchip Forum.
[OT] tag makes PIClist even more distinct from other technical list.
But that is another thing.

We know that [EE] now stands for "Everything Engineering". My
opinion is that IT (information technology) belongs to [EE].
But I think quite some people here may not agree.

Mark Rages wrote:
>I have a request for a new tag in the subject line.
>This tag would cover the following topics:
>- Windows administration questions, such as:
>   - Computer viruses and anti-virus software.
>   - Discussions of general purpose (not engineering) software

Is this [EE]? I think it is as per the Sober.z thread. I think
it is reasonable. Again quite some people will disagree.

>- Discussion about email, such as:
>   - Complaints about line length
>   - Flames about top-posting, bottom-feeding, and reply trimming
>   - Discussion of spam, and anti-spam measures
>   - Discussion about archiving
>   - Discussion about email clients
>   - Unsubscribe requests

This is mostly covered in [OT]. I think we'd better cover it in
[OT] even though I think it is also [EE] if Sober.z and the
antivirus thread are indeed [EE]. Again quite some people will
disagree.

>- Language and platform wars
>   - Windows vs. $OS flamewars
>   - Discussion of C, C++, C#, or other personal computer programming
> languages.
>   - How to obtain, install, compile, debug any general purpose (not
>engineering) software

I think this is [EE], at least more like [EE] than Sober.z. For
example, isn't software UI design part of human engineering
(or called man-machine engineering)?

>- Off-topic excursions with no novelty or currency value, such as
>rehashes of USENET flamewars from fifteen years ago.

No comment.

>What these subjects have in common is that they are not PIC or
>engineering related.

I agree that they are not [PIC], but they may be [EE] depends
on the definition is [EE].

Once [EE] is defined, [OT] will be slightly easier to define.
Or the definition is just another unknowable?

But again I expect that the answer is quite clear -->
"learn how to turn off the [OT] (and possibly [EE] as well) topics."
Or maybe there are other choices as well...

Regards,
Xiaofan


2005\11\29@215621 by Ian Stewart

flavicon
face
Love the PIClist just the way it is.
For the messages I don't want to read I can hit the red cross before
the message is marked as read.

Ian
{Original Message removed}

2005\11\29@223616 by Chen Xiao Fan

face
flavicon
face
>I use [OT][WOT] for more questionable stuff.
>Some appreciate this, some don't.

The problem with [WOT] is that it is too [OT]. Anyway,
I no longer have problems with [WOT] or [WWWWOT] when using
Gmail. But my opinion is still similar to Olin's that
even [OT] should be limited.

>The otherwise admirable admin is strangely deaf to
>requests for a slightly rearranged or extended tag system :-)
>        RM

PIClist is so diversified and international that
it seems to be the best option to keep situation as it is.
The solution is to use a proper tool to read PIClist.
For me Gmail is good enough. Gmane and PIClist.com
seems to be another options.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\30@050333 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I have a request that this become a more focused list, and not
> discuss EVERYTHING.

Request denied :-)
Based not on my fiat (although it correlates well) but on well
hammered out precedent.

We really really really need a faq item on this and/or directions to
newcomers to such faq. Maybe I should write one?

OT is intended to be VERY broad. There are limits - THEY are in the
faq. Apart from them the OT subject matter is intended to be very
broad. If that doesn't suit one's style then facilities are provided
for OT to be for you as if it had never existed.

> Perhaps it is time to start new _lists_ rather than new _tags_ for
> existing lists.

It's always that time.
People are most welcome to.
Some do.
Few prosper as this community does.
There are many tightly focused lists with far less soul for those who
are more comfortable in more cloistered environments. On this list
even people like Olin and me are almost tolerated :-)



       Russell McMahon


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