Searching \ for '[EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all' 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=subscribbling+russell
Search entire site for: 'Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'[EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he w'
2008\04\12@020745 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your pseuedo-scientific
mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to the fuel line on
your automobile to get better mileage, Russell.  It's you or me and I
quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist.

-Bob

2008\04\12@041550 by Jinx

face picon face
> I've finally had enough of this crap

I'm surprised he didn't filter. Works wonders

2008\04\12@045227 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Bob Blick <spam_OUTbobblickTakeThisOuTspamftml.net> wrote:
> I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your pseuedo-scientific
> mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to the fuel line on
> your automobile to get better mileage, Russell.  It's you or me and I
> quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist.
>

Please do not leave PIClist. You can filter off [EE] if it is too polluted
for your taste. Luckily [PIC] is quite clean.

I am not so sure what is your email client and how easy it is to do
filtering. I am using Gmail and I just select all the threads I am not
interested
(including those [EE] [OT] craps) and mark them as "READ". I do not even
delete them. Just ignore them.


Xiaofan

2008\04\12@054959 by Info

flavicon
face
It doesnt matter what his email client is since the piclist
email server itself can be set to only send [PIC] and not
the other catergories if you like.

>You can filter off [EE] if it is too polluted
>for your taste. Luckily [PIC] is quite clean.

Thats not luck, its by design.

>I am not so sure what is your email client and how easy it is to do
>filtering. I am using Gmail and I just select all the threads I am not
>interested
>(including those [EE] [OT] craps) and mark them as "READ". I do not even
>delete them. Just ignore them.
>Xiaofan

2008\04\12@064131 by Funny NYPD

picon face
I used free yahoo email, click the subject, and delete most of the junk I don't like to read. It is just this easy.

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, New Bedford, MA, http://www.AuElectronics.com

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\12@064852 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Blick wrote:

> I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your pseuedo-scientific
> mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to the fuel line on
> your automobile to get better mileage, Russell.  It's you or me and I
> quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist.

Now come on... This from the one who wants to keep [EE] "clean"?

Gerhard

2008\04\12@082923 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Gerhard Fiedler
<.....listsKILLspamspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> Bob Blick wrote:
>
> > I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your pseuedo-scientific
> > mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to the fuel line on
> > your automobile to get better mileage, Russell.  It's you or me and I
> > quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist.
>
> Now come on... This from the one who wants to keep [EE] "clean"?
>

Don't you think Bob Blick has a valid point? And I think this kind of
response (albeit too extreme) is useful. Last time I posted a thread
to express my concerns about [WOT] and it seems to be useful.

Xiaofan

2008\04\12@083844 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Info <infospamKILLspamdatech.se> wrote:
> It doesnt matter what his email client is since the piclist
> email server itself can be set to only send [PIC] and not
> the other catergories if you like.
>
> >You can filter off [EE] if it is too polluted
> >for your taste. Luckily [PIC] is quite clean.
>
> Thats not luck, its by design.

I would not filter off [EE]. I would not filter [OT] (initially I
filtered it off). But if the email client is as good as Gmail
in threading, then it is easy to ignore (or delete) the threads.

The simple tagging system is not so useful now as [EE]
covers too many things.

[PIC] is clean because James enforces strict rules for
[PIC]. The system can not guarantee the cleaness without
an arbitrator. The paticular party has no business with
[PIC] so it also helps...

Xiaofan

Xiaofan

2008\04\12@091258 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Can you explain how any 'point' made above is in any way
valid or useful?
I recommend that you read the following before replying to
that.

I thought that his above comments had no valid points in
them at all.
I wrote a brief response to your other related post and then
deleted it.
I initially saw it as a comment by you on the quality of my
posts but decided that you were essentially just quoting
Bob.
I've just retrieved it from my deleted folder:

You said:
   //  > (including those [EE] [OT] craps)

I said (in my deleted reply)

   Would you care to identify ANY of the allegedly science
   based material that I have posted of late that is
actually
   "crap"?

I attempt to both ensure that anything I post has a basis in
reality and to quantify its probable reliability when there
is more than usual doubt.

I regret that Bob has chosen to spit the dummy and leave.
My comments on the 'solar dynamo' were an attempt to invoke
an area that is wholly mainstream science (see references
below).
His labelling it as 'crap', 'pseudo scientific'; and 'mumbo
jumbo' and your suggesting he 'has a valid point' are both
surprising.
Did you feel that using these labels to describe mainstream
scientific theories was valid or useful?

Bob, and a few other people, seem to suggest that various
things are not "scientific" or that vested interests clearly
exist on "one side" but not the other, but when I post
references to substantive material that addresses the
criticism they just ignore it, but are liable to pop up
again at a later date and do the same thing again. What I'd
like is for people to rationally address the very important
issues raised. If, instead, people just ignore the subject
then nothing will happen and all is well.

The comments re "tie some magnets to the fuel line" is
essentially ad hominem attack and seems (to me) to have no
useful place in the discussion. Did you find that part valid
or useful?

Did you see the NASA and ESA links re 'solar dynamo' action
that I posted?

NASA
"The solar dynamo"

       http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml

ESA
       http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=13870

It may be that this material is outside Bob's knowledge, or
yours, but in Bob's case I'd be surprised as he seems widely
experienced. Even if it was new I'd have expected (or hoped)
that he'd at least take the effort to gARGOYLE it before
taking the steps of either dummy spitting or labelling what
I said as he did.

It seems that Bob has an extreme hatred (hardly too strong a
term it seems, alas) for anything I say and when I post on
subjects which are equally distasteful to him he goes to
extreme lengths to rubbish my input and to label it as
"crank" or non-scientific. His explanation of how it is not
engineering "engineering" would apply to many other things
quite validly and harmoniously discussed in EE.

Bob seems to want to force not only discussion but even
postings on subjects where he doesn't want views other than
his own presented, into a form where he can ignore them. Why
he has such extreme antipathy for the subject I don't know.
And, regrettably, I probably never will.




       Russell


2008\04\12@092827 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> I wrote a brief response to your other related post and then
> deleted it. I initially saw it as a comment by you on the quality
> of my posts but decided that you were essentially just quoting
> Bob.

I am not responding to this paticular post but your posts
in general. Not the quality per se. There are many good posts and
many good links. However there are also too many things
not in the spirit of PIClist, at least from my point of view.

Anyway, I will stop here.

Xiaofan

2008\04\12@092912 by olin piclist

face picon face
Jinx wrote:
> I'm surprised he didn't filter.

He shouldn't have to.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\12@094116 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>The particular party has no business with
> [PIC] so it also helps...

No. It doesn't.
The particular party attempts to stick to the subject tags -
whether PIC or other. Interestingly ADDING extra psedo tags
in addition to the real tag as a service to others met with
criticism from those who might have been expected to be most
appreciative of the gesture.

When / if someone develops a useful coronal mass ejection
detector using a PIC, or a PIC based CO2 and atmospheric
warming correlation indicator then they too may turn up in
PIC.

Absence from posting does not necessarily indicate an
absence of interest. Many people are more expert than I in
the PIC area so there is little point in my posting. You
will find an occasional post from me there (18 so far this
year or about 1 per week).


       Russell






2008\04\12@095221 by jim

flavicon
face
All,

Nobody asked for my opinion, but since the discussion has arisen, I'll speak
up.
In my opinion, anything that deals with things other than PIC's and EE,
shouldn't
even be posted at all.  This is the PICLIST, not the "talk about anything
you want to" list.
Maybe the ocassional obituary, or something along that line, but in all
honesty, some of
the threads posted on this forum have made me wonder why such talk was ever
posted in
the first place.  I usually clear them away by just deleting the posts I'm
not interested in, and go on from there.  But the fact that they are there
just detracts from the desire to even read the valid posts.  I know
filtering is available, but why should I trouble myself to setup a filter on
a SIG that is specifically for a subject that interests me.  I would expect
a SIG to handle traffic that is specifically related to the subject the SIG
is about.  If I wanted content on anything and everything, I'd go to some
chatroom.  And I can't stand chatrooms.


I have no intention of unsubscribing from the list because when all is said
and done,
after you weave your way through all the junk posts, this list does provide
a necessary
and valuable service to the PIC users community.  However, I believe it
would be much better if the unrelated and non-PIC relevent issues and posts
were eliminated altogether.

This is just my opinion.  I have no real say in what posts are allowed, or
no control over same, so I'm probably just spitting into the wind.  But I
wanted to express my opinion.

One other thing that I believe is food for thought, and  also further
justifies my opinion.
If I remember correctly, it seems to me there have been several people in
the past that have unsubscribed from this list because of these very issues.
Because of differences of
opinion regarding what are valid posts and what is so much wasted bandwidth.
And until,  and if,  the philosophy of posting changes, this trend will
probably continue.


I'm done now.  Back to the original program.....

P.S.  For the record, I think the fact that Bob is leaving, or has left
already, is a grave loss
        to this list and to the PIC community in general.    Bob, if you
see this post, come
        back.   The list needs you.

                                                                           
Regards,

                                                                           
  Jim



{Original Message removed}

2008\04\12@095533 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Apptech <EraseMEapptechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> >The particular party has no business with
> > [PIC] so it also helps...
>
> No. It doesn't.
>
> Absence from posting does not necessarily indicate an
> absence of interest. Many people are more expert than I in
> the PIC area so there is little point in my posting. You
> will find an occasional post from me there (18 so far this
> year or about 1 per week).

Ok you have a point here. I admit that paticular sentence
is a bit off.

Xiaofan

2008\04\12@103629 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face

> I've finally had enough of this crap.

Hi Bob,

As a once VERY active participant to now a lurker, you may wish to try my
tactic: ignore it. The only time I read Russel's posts are when someone
whom I've deemed important (like you) respond to them. At some point,
Russel may realize that the PICLIST is not the right forum for
proselytizing the religion of science.

Scott

2008\04\12@111540 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Scott Dattalo <scottspamspam_OUTdattalo.com> wrote:
>
>  > I've finally had enough of this crap.
>
>  Hi Bob,
>
>  As a once VERY active participant to now a lurker, you may wish to try my
>  tactic: ignore it.

Actually you do more than ignoring it. Since you have become a lurker
rather than an active participant. And that is a loss to PIClist.

>  The only time I read Russel's posts are when someone
>  whom I've deemed important (like you) respond to them. At some point,
>  Russel may realize that the PICLIST is not the right forum for
>  proselytizing the religion of science.
>

Well said. Now I am ignoring most of the [OT] topics and it seems to
me that I need to ignore more [EE] topics. Maybe later I will just
become a lurker just like you...

Oops, I said "I will stop here"...

Xiaofan

2008\04\12@114330 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Scott Dattalo wrote:
>> I've finally had enough of this crap.
>>    
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> As a once VERY active participant to now a lurker, you may wish to try my
> tactic: ignore it. The only time I read Russel's posts are when someone
> whom I've deemed important (like you) respond to them. At some point,
> Russel may realize that the PICLIST is not the right forum for
> proselytizing the religion of science.
>
> Scott
>  
I always considered the PICLIST as a learning place. The PIC tag was
always obvious. The
EE tag was where people learn about engineering items not directly
related to PICs but important
nevertheless. If the EE tag becomes debauched it will be a sad day on
the PIClist.

How GW got stretched from its solid pseudoscience footing into
"everything engineering"
is truly amazing. Seems like the PIClist cops need to decide on this
one. Never can seem
to find a cop when you need one...

--Bob A

2008\04\12@123317 by Rich

picon face
Russell has made many good contributions to the List over the years.  He is
a reasonable man.  It seems that the reaction to his posts need not be
overdone.


{Original Message removed}

2008\04\12@152953 by Charles Rogers

picon face
Bob:

I very much hope you reconsider unsubscribing.  Why don't you just
use the BLOCK SENDERS LIST if you are using Outlook Express in
windows.
I first got on the PicList about 5 years ago and when I asked my very first
question I was most severly chastised by a certain guy who now seems to
be somewhat scarce on the List.  This is about the fourth reply that I have
made in the last 5 years.   I have learned a lot since then from guys like
you
and others on the list, so don't leave, just add people to your blocked
senders
list and continue to help people like me.

I have been strongly considering asking a question about the 12F508,
so if you and other people keep dropping out there will be no Pic List

Charles C. Rogers








{Original Message removed}

2008\04\12@160317 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Charles Rogers wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Ask away, Charles. You'll get the help you need for sure.

--Bob A

2008\04\12@171340 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
I hate to say this, but I'm starting to feel the same way.

I strongly feel that the [EE] tag is now being used do discuss
subjects that are either at best, fully [OT], or, perhaps, best not
discussed on the Piclist at all.

There has always been some stuff that I don't believe belongs in
[EE], but those threads are generally short and easily skipped over
as needed.  That's not the case lately.

[EE] is a valuable resource that is now being frittered away.

Please, Russell, you know that I enjoy reading much of what you
write.  But if there is EVER a question of whether something belongs
under the [OT] tag or [EE] tag, then PLEASE use the [OT] tag.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll use reading the Piclist
as a diversion when I need a break from what I'm doing right
now.  This often lets my subconscious work at solving my current
problem.  These little breaks are just that: short - a few minutes at
best.  I don't look at [OT] subjects - I don't have time.  I do look
at everything else - more often than not, I'll see something that
influences me in some way or other.  Might have relevance now, maybe
it touches on something I did last week or last month, perhaps it
even guides me in a direction for an upcoming project.

The massively long threads about GW or GWB or education or any number
of otherwise widely off-topic subjects are simply too much to handle
during those short breaks.  Rather, those are what I read when I have
a couple of hours to spare.  I rarely watch TV - I'd rather
read.  But that's me.

Please - consider my request.

dwayne


At 12:07 AM 4/12/2008, Bob Blick wrote:
>I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your pseuedo-scientific
>mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to the fuel line on
>your automobile to get better mileage, Russell.  It's you or me and I
>quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist.
>
>-Bob
>

2008\04\12@172526 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> How GW got stretched from its solid pseudoscience footing
> into
> "everything engineering"
> is truly amazing.

That in fact is my main thesis. I attempt to provide real
science to combat this and people complain. The conclusion
that I honestly form is that they are in support of the
pseudo science and want to stifle intelligent and informed
debate. That genuinely is the impression I form.

> Seems like the PIClist cops need to decide on this
> one. Never can seem
> to find a cop when you need one...

Are you asking for the the burning of books, or men?
Some, as we have seen, are quick off the mark on such.

While you are waiting, consider looking at

               http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml

and point out any pseudo science.

If you can be bothered look at ANY of the links I have
posted and point out ANY with pseudo science therein. I'll
be happy to acknowledge any such that seems to fail match a
normal description of 'science'.


       Russell



2008\04\12@175152 by Gordon Williams

picon face
The main problem is the perversion of "engineering".  Engineering is Applied
Science - science used by man for the things that he makes.

Whether it is science or pseudoscience in this thread I don't care.  It is
not engineering so if you want to discuss it any more take it off-topic.

Hoping the S/N will increase,

Gordon Williams



{Original Message removed}

2008\04\12@212446 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
I was not going to post in response to this thread but your response and
Dwayne Reid's response in [EE] pretty much sum up my feelings on this
issue.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:52:00 -0400, Gordon Williams wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\13@012005 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
I feel rather strongly about the principles involved in this
discussion, as may have been noticed.

I (too) greatly dislike the noising up of the [EE] channel
by
spurious material and I agree and sympathise with thoughts
like -

{Quote hidden}

I too find long and rambling and voluminous threads which
are clearly political or even "social" are best placed in OT
if they are allowed. I find that when I post on a technical
topic people often enough change the subject completely but
don't change the subject line or tag. I recently actually
requested that one such transmogrification be retagged and
re titled so that the still useful parallel original
discussion not be totally noised out.

So, I do NOT wish to bury people like Dwayne in utter
garbage.

However:

The "length" of threads and volume of material on this
subject (GW) is almost solely caused by people cynically
yelling and
trampling up and down the halls while in no way even
remotely
trying to add value. Many many many other things that I post
on are simply left uncommented or generate a small traffic
volume from interested respondents. When GW is mentioned the
loud bullies come out and yell and throw muck around in the
hope of getting the teacher to come and intervene. There is
very little substantive alternative-point comment (Ian
provided some material worth commenting on and there may
have been others) but the loud
yelling and claims of pseudo science come, often enough with
ad hominem attacks (albeit perhaps somewhat disguised)(eg
magnets on fuel lines).

What IS Science and what will be engineering all too soon
becomes the subject for ridicule and scorn and attempts to
remove information and discussion.

I am very aware that the comparison that I am about to make
is often misused and is usually just a way of saying that
one's "opponent" is stupid and that you don't like their
face. I do not use it this way. I mean this literally as it
is said and I am NOT trying to draw more parallels than I
explicitly mention. (I base these admittedly unpleasant
comparisons on my own reasonably extensive reading in this
area.) I am not extending this to comparisons with
jackbooted racist thugs - if you do take exception to the
comparisons, which I feel are entirely appropriate, please
limit them to direct responses to what I actually say. So -

The more extreme tactics used here against intelligent
scientific global warming discussion are (it genuinely seems
to me) remarkably similar to those used by the Nazis to
achieve their aims in 1930's Germany. "Constant violence"
against the opponent, no admission of any merit regardless
of whether merit was actually perceived and a constant
attribution of wrong motives and bad logic and lack of
foundation were all a deliberate part of the Nazi approach.
The Nazi literal "burning of books" approach to literature
produced by their 'opponents' bears an uncomfortable
parallel with efforts to proscribe and ridicule sites or
sources which may contain information which may be perceived
to support opposing views.

Let me say that if Bob Axtell is reading this and has got
this far I imagine that he will be 'moderately annoyed' at
the comparisons that I am making, and upsetting Bob A is not
something I want to do. SO I note that I do NOT
include Bob Axtell's actions in the category above. He (you)
seem more (IMHO as always) like the population of the time
who went along with what was being said and done blind to
its excesses and seeing only the good and positive things
that were being achieved. The Nazis DID achieve vast good in
Germany in the pre-WW2 era. De-noising the list is an
excellent aim - it helps if one is not aware that the
initial noise was caused by the one's seeking to get the
subject kicked out.

Another metaphor which I think is entirely apposite is also
objectionable if carried into areas beyond those which I
expressly mention. Terrorism is intended to work by
obtaining 'leverage' far in excess of the effort and
resources put into it. "911" killed about 3000 people. A
great loss and a far from trivial one. BUT the damage which
was done must exceed the wildest dreams of those who carried
it out. [[Let's NOT even start to discuss who that may have
been]]. The amount of ongoing fear, disruption to the US way
of life and increased  restrictions of freedoms have a
"value" far beyond the initial impact. The same applies to
eg suicide and other bombings  whether in the middle east or
the UK or elsewhere. Often it is possible to stir up the
authorities involved to the extent that the restrictions are
worse than the original attack and 'the people' revolt
against their own authorities.

Here BB started a loud and noisy and high volume campaign of
derision and slander. At his peak he was slanging summaries
of NASA and similar research as pseudo science and quackery.
Solar dynamo and magnets on fuel lines aren't quite
comparable, but they all got the same treatment in the cause
of the cause. A few people quite understandably get annoyed
by the noise and volume and get on the 'take it outside'
bandwagon and then a few more and after a while everyone is
shouting about how noisy it is in here. Meanwhile Bob has
detonated his suicide belt to add the sympathy vote (bring
back Bob, please don't leave*, biff out Russell into outer
OT darkness ... , ) and we have a fine party all around.
About here we have people analysing what is "real"
engineering, whether this (NASA & ESA) stuff is pseudo
science and whether electrical engineers care about sunspot
cycles and more.

If I had been posting on almost anything else in the science
continuum (as I do) and BB and everyone else had just
ignored it, where would we be now?

As for the "volume" that I add to the list by such postings
(as opposed to the totally unrelated notice on ones like
this) - the eg much (by me) esteemed Bob A's continued
failure to trim the lonnnnnnngest of posts when adding even
the shortest of responses (on this current topic and others)
generates  far more list volume than I can ever hope to
aspire to. I greatly appreciate Bob A (really!) but if he
got his post trimming act together I could increase my
throughput by 50% and we'd still be much better off. (As
long as Bob B didn't decide to get stuck into me on some
subject or other).

* I don't want BB to leave - even though it would make my
life more pleasant. He is a great asset to the list. If he
could simple not comment on the *occasional* post of mine
that he'd rather not see then it would be possible for all
to be well most of the time. I'm also not overly convinced
that BB intends or even intended to leave. I consider his
"Russell or me" ultimatum most unfortunate.

> At 12:07 AM 4/12/2008, Bob Blick wrote:
>>I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your
>>pseudo-scientific
>>mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to
>>the fuel line on
>>your automobile to get better mileage,

Solar dynamo - NASA, ESA, many more

Antarctic summer ice melting rate at second lowest level in
20 years and 40% of 20 year average - NASA satellite data.

Sunspot / Galactic radiation / Terran cloud cover - good
science, under debate.

ALL CO2 greenhouse models violate 2nd law of thermodynamics
and can't reflect reality - looks like good science to me.

IPCC models are not intended to and can't predict climate -
IPCC top guru.

Much more. Doesn't HAVE to be waved around at length. Just
mentioned for those who care. 'These are not the ones you
want, move along'.


Whatever.


       Russell

           "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt,
           verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." **

                                           "Almansor"

               Heinrich Heine, 1821.

** "They that start by burning books will end by burning
men."

2008\04\13@090825 by olin piclist

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
> So, I do NOT wish to bury people like Dwayne in utter
> garbage.

Which was then followed by over 200 lines of rambling.

You still don't get it.  It's not about the science or lack thereof of
global warming.  It's about the PIClist getting barraged by lengthy
unsolicited posts on subjects people didn't come here for.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\13@100909 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

> I feel rather strongly about the principles involved in this
> discussion, as may have been noticed.

So do I. From another angle:

- Those who don't want the EE space "polluted", shouldn't do it themselves
and carry out such discussions in OT. At least. If not, it really looks
hypocritical.

- If someone thinks something may not be correctly tagged, an offlist
question to the admins would be a more proper response. They then can
decide whether to step in or not. (Unless it's a clear cut case that just
needs a friendly hint -- which this here clearly isn't; the absence of real
arguments shows this.)

- If someone thinks the admins don't do an adequate (for his criteria) job,
he can try to become an admin. AFAIK, there are always openings.

- If someone doesn't want to get involved at that level, he should just
leave it up to the ones who do and accept things as they are. Maybe a
/friendly/ suggestion every now and then about possible changes, and that's
it -- no bickering. This is what I think we owe to the admins.

Gerhard

2008\04\13@103906 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
Gerhard wrote:

> So do I. From another angle:

There are other forums suitable for proselytizing the religion of science.
Denigrating the PICLIST into such a forum has resulted in any substantive
PIC/microcontroller discussion to migrate to the Microchip forum. It's one
of the reasons why I don't participate too much anymore. It's one of the
reasons Bob has chosen to leave.

Scott

2008\04\13@104202 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> Bob Blick wrote:
>>
>>> I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your pseuedo-scientific
>>> mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to the fuel line
>>> on your automobile to get better mileage, Russell.  It's you or me and
>>> I quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist.
>>
>> Now come on... This from the one who wants to keep [EE] "clean"?
>
> Don't you think Bob Blick has a valid point?

If he has one, he has taken very little effort to make it clear. I've
stated my opinion in various messages in this thread...

First, I think he should have held this discussion in OT in the first
place. Producing all this chatter in EE while at the same time complaining
about a few posts with links to scientific sites in EE is... odd.

Second, there were very few real arguments, about what specific post was or
wasn't about science or engineering, and why exactly. Just a general "I'm
tired of GW, so I don't want anybody to post about it in anything I read. I
don't read OT, so post it there. I myself however can pollute the EE space
with my own non-EE issues whenever I like". For me that's not what I call a
"valid point". He may have one besides this one, but I couldn't really
extract it from his posts.

Then there's 3rd and 4th and 5th and so on... I won't repeat it all :)

Gerhard

2008\04\13@111041 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Scott Dattalo <@spam@scottKILLspamspamdattalo.com> wrote:
> Gerhard wrote:
>
> > So do I. From another angle:
>
> There are other forums suitable for proselytizing the religion of science.
> Denigrating the PICLIST into such a forum has resulted in any substantive
> PIC/microcontroller discussion to migrate to the Microchip forum. It's one
> of the reasons why I don't participate too much anymore. It's one of the
> reasons Bob has chosen to leave.
>

Scott has summarized my feeling well. I've stated similar opionions
last time regarding [WOT]. Long time ago, Olin and other have
posted similar opinions about then [OT].
http://www.piclist.com/techref/postbot.asp?by=thread&id=%5BOT%5D+Should+%5BWOT%5D+be+allowed+or+not&w=body&tgt=post

Anyway, enough has been said.

I have no problem with PIClist becomes an [OT] list. I can always
return to use Gmane to read PIClist if there are something interesting.

Xiaofan

2008\04\13@123736 by Ken Del Greco

picon face

> There are other forums suitable for proselytizing the religion of science.
> Denigrating the PICLIST into such a forum has resulted in any substantive
> PIC/microcontroller discussion to migrate to the Microchip forum. It's one
> of the reasons why I don't participate too much anymore. It's one of the
> reasons Bob has chosen to leave.
>
> Scott

Scott summerized it perfectly.

I've been lurking on this list for a long time. I can't believe my
first post is going to be about this subject. But I have to agree 100%
with Bob. I don't want to attack Russell personally because there's
plenty of blame to go around. But he does seem to have hijacked this
list and turned it into a personal blog.

I can filter [OT], and I do. I'd like to not have to filter [EE]
because I enjoy RELEVANT engineering discussions as much as the next
guy. However, these days I'm getting swamped with the
pseudo-science/astronomy/global-warming stuff, which would be great if
this was a pseudo-science/astronomy/global-warming list. But
unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The worst part is
that it gets even less relevant from there!

You can argue all you want about the semantics of what "everything
engineering" means on the PIClist. But applying just a simple dose of
common sense should imply "everything engineering" as it applies to
PIC's (even remotely). FET questions? Yeah, sure. Manhattan style
construction? Sounds good. Connector recommendations? No problem. But
sun spots, global warming, personal nuclear reactors? Argh.

Why can't this list stay PIC related and with engineering topics
related to PIC's? It doesn't seem too far fetched of a notion to me. I
mean, why else are people here? There are 1000's of other lists out
there to discuss all the other topics that get posted here on a
regular basis.

I know it's not realistic to bring the PIClist back to its roots.
That's been demonstrated many times over the years. But James, at the
very least, could you create a tag like [PRE] (PIC related
engineering)? Then at least, those of us that are subscribed to this
list for PIC reasons can start enjoying it again instead of having to
wade though 70% of the junk that's posted these days. And before you
say it - no, I don't want to take your job from you. I really do
appreciate what you, Josh and others do to keep this list going. I
know it's a lot of work and a relatively thankless job. And most of us
deep down do recognize it's not easy keeping the civility here.

But I've seen many good people leave this list over the years and it's
virtually always because the S/N ratio has dropped so much over time.
Having Bob (along with dozens of other top-notch people) leave this
list has been a great loss. Every time one of the "stars" of the list
leaves, this same issue of off-topic posting gets rehashed again.
Yeah, things might get better for a week or two, but then it's back to
its old ways. Simply enforcing a few common sense rules to bring back
the charter of the PIClist would do wonders for my sanity (and I
suspect a lot of others here).

OK, back to lurking and waiting for the next PIC related nugget to
surface. :)

Ken

_________________________________________________________________
Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.
hthttp://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_packup_042008

2008\04\13@124155 by Derward

picon face
Gerhard, I agree with you on this situation.

I have watched this discussion(if you can call it that) and
was not going to respond.  However I have decided to comment.
It appears that some who think that GW is man made seams to get
very upset when there is an opposing view.  They appear to
almost take it as a religion and  it becomes my way or no way.
This will blur any objective approach quicker than anything.
As an Engineer I find all discussions about physical problems
and their solution to be very interesting.

If someone does not like a subject then do not read it as I do at times.
You should be able to block what you do not want. Some times I see a
post title or the person that wrote it and I delete it without reading it.
I think this is all that is needed.

I do not agree with every  post that Russell makes, But then I do not agree
with every post that everyone else makes.

It appears that some do not like Russell and have deiced to jump
on the bandwagon.

Derward


{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@165416 by Rich

picon face
The problem with the GW topic is that it is so controversial that even the
scientific community cannot agree.  It seems as though it comes with a high
degree of  passion. I read Russell posts most of the time. But I did not
follow the GW thread much.  If it is in OT it is just another thread.  I can
set filters on my e-mail and I can move any topic to any folder. I can
create a folder.  I can if I want to, filter all mail from any name. Is that
not a solution?  It does not require much effort to set it up.  I am
reasonably sure that most e-mail has filtering capability.  I happen to have
great respect for Russell.  It seems that the reaction should be just filter
rather than chastisement.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@182157 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> There are other forums suitable for proselytizing the
> religion of science.

I assume that you mean "combating the darkness with the use
of real world data" [tm].

It feels extremely "Catch 22" to not be able to talk about
real-world real-data (eg NASA Satellite data) associated
with such areas without it being termed "religion". If
religion can not be addressed by science without the science
itself becoming religion where does it leave us?

But

> Denigrating the PICLIST into such a forum has resulted in
> any substantive
> PIC/microcontroller discussion to migrate to the Microchip
> forum. It's one
> of the reasons why I don't participate too much anymore.

I have heard that claim a number of times, but it's a
puzzling one.
The [PIC] tag has been kept very PIC related and people like
you (Scott) who claim to have only PIC interest could
happily live in there if they chose without any awareness of
the storms of other material in other tags. It is uncertain
to me how the quality of [PIC] is adversely affected by the
content of eg [EE]. In addition, related electronic material
which may be proscribed in a pure PIC forum would be allowed
here. I have long favoured an additional technical tag
allowing EE to become "Electrical Engineering" which would
double buffer [PIC] from more mundane material. We have eg
the little used SX and AVR but eg TECHO or whatever seems
too hard.

If you look at the list of recent [EE] topics from my 'We
are not amused' post then there 'seems' little there that
can meet the claim that -

> >It's one of the
>> reasons Bob has chosen to leave.

Almost any action that a person takes can have a list of "
... one of the reasons that ... " attached which, as they
are unexaminable, can carry far more subjective weight than
their content may merit.

Bob's unremitting fury over the presentation of any hard
data that relates to "the religion of cience" in this area
has always seemed to be due to his implicit religious
support for the religion as it stands.

> The only time I read Russel's posts are when someone
> whom I've deemed important (like you) respond to them.

I guess you will not see this unless someone you respect
replies to it :-)


       Russell

2008\04\13@225228 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Which was then followed by over 200 lines of rambling.

Followed by under 200, including blank lines, fwiw :-).

Does "rambling include"

 > Solar dynamo - NASA, ESA, many more

 > Antarctic summer ice melting rate at second lowest level
in
 > 20 years and 40% of 20 year average - NASA satellite
data.

 > Sunspot / Galactic radiation / Terran cloud cover - good
 > science, under debate.

 > ALL CO2 greenhouse models violate 2nd law of
thermodynamics
 > and can't reflect reality - looks like good science to
me.

 > IPCC models are not intended to and can't predict
climate -
 >  IPCC top guru.

> You still don't get it.

Well enough, I think.

> It's not about the science or lack thereof of
> global warming.  It's about the PIClist getting barraged
> by lengthy
> unsolicited posts on subjects people didn't come here for.

Your thoughts on the subject are appreciated.
It's good to know I'm on the right track :-)


       R




2008\04\13@231050 by James Newton

face picon face
But, Scott, you can turn off OT and EE and ONLY receive PIC tags. Which I
police VERY strongly.

Why is that not a solution to your problem with the list not being PICy
enough?

--
James.


{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@231122 by James Newton

face picon face
Why, Oh why, can you NOT just turn off EE and OT?

Why?

If you only what PIC, why not turn off EE and OT?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@231245 by James Newton

face picon face
Why can you not turn off EE and OT?

Why?

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
Ken Del Greco
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 09:37
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: RE: [EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he wants


> There are other forums suitable for proselytizing the religion of science.
> Denigrating the PICLIST into such a forum has resulted in any substantive
> PIC/microcontroller discussion to migrate to the Microchip forum. It's one
> of the reasons why I don't participate too much anymore. It's one of the
> reasons Bob has chosen to leave.
>
> Scott

Scott summerized it perfectly.

I've been lurking on this list for a long time. I can't believe my
first post is going to be about this subject. But I have to agree 100%
with Bob. I don't want to attack Russell personally because there's
plenty of blame to go around. But he does seem to have hijacked this
list and turned it into a personal blog.

I can filter [OT], and I do. I'd like to not have to filter [EE]
because I enjoy RELEVANT engineering discussions as much as the next
guy. However, these days I'm getting swamped with the
pseudo-science/astronomy/global-warming stuff, which would be great if
this was a pseudo-science/astronomy/global-warming list. But
unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The worst part is
that it gets even less relevant from there!

You can argue all you want about the semantics of what "everything
engineering" means on the PIClist. But applying just a simple dose of
common sense should imply "everything engineering" as it applies to
PIC's (even remotely). FET questions? Yeah, sure. Manhattan style
construction? Sounds good. Connector recommendations? No problem. But
sun spots, global warming, personal nuclear reactors? Argh.

Why can't this list stay PIC related and with engineering topics
related to PIC's? It doesn't seem too far fetched of a notion to me. I
mean, why else are people here? There are 1000's of other lists out
there to discuss all the other topics that get posted here on a
regular basis.

I know it's not realistic to bring the PIClist back to its roots.
That's been demonstrated many times over the years. But James, at the
very least, could you create a tag like [PRE] (PIC related
engineering)? Then at least, those of us that are subscribed to this
list for PIC reasons can start enjoying it again instead of having to
wade though 70% of the junk that's posted these days. And before you
say it - no, I don't want to take your job from you. I really do
appreciate what you, Josh and others do to keep this list going. I
know it's a lot of work and a relatively thankless job. And most of us
deep down do recognize it's not easy keeping the civility here.

But I've seen many good people leave this list over the years and it's
virtually always because the S/N ratio has dropped so much over time.
Having Bob (along with dozens of other top-notch people) leave this
list has been a great loss. Every time one of the "stars" of the list
leaves, this same issue of off-topic posting gets rehashed again.
Yeah, things might get better for a week or two, but then it's back to
its old ways. Simply enforcing a few common sense rules to bring back
the charter of the PIClist would do wonders for my sanity (and I
suspect a lot of others here).

OK, back to lurking and waiting for the next PIC related nugget to
surface. :)

Ken

_________________________________________________________________
Pack up or back up-use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies.
Learn how.
htwww.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refres
h_skydrive_packup_042008

2008\04\13@231422 by James Newton

face picon face
It blows me away that people who can make a PIC dance on the head of a pin
are unable to filter topics by keyword, author, or simply turn off the EE
and OT topics.

Why can people NOT just turn off EE and OT?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@231831 by James Newton

face picon face
Exactly, Scott seems to be saying that he refuses to participate even in PIC
topics because there is noise on the EE and OT front.

I completely fail to understand why he and others like him, who can make a
PIC sing, can't simply turn OFF the EE and OT tags? It just isn't that hard
to do.

Why not just turn off EE and OT?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@231855 by James Newton

face picon face
Why not turn off EE and OT?

Why?

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Olin Lathrop
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 06:10
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he wants

Apptech wrote:
> So, I do NOT wish to bury people like Dwayne in utter
> garbage.

Which was then followed by over 200 lines of rambling.

You still don't get it.  It's not about the science or lack thereof of
global warming.  It's about the PIClist getting barraged by lengthy
unsolicited posts on subjects people didn't come here for.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\13@231914 by James Newton

face picon face
Why not?

Why not turn off EE and OT?

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Olin Lathrop
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 06:31
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he wants

Jinx wrote:
> I'm surprised he didn't filter.

He shouldn't have to.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\13@231944 by James Newton

face picon face
Why not turn off EE and OT?

Why?

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Apptech
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 19:52
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he wants

> Which was then followed by over 200 lines of rambling.

Followed by under 200, including blank lines, fwiw :-).

Does "rambling include"

 > Solar dynamo - NASA, ESA, many more

 > Antarctic summer ice melting rate at second lowest level
in
 > 20 years and 40% of 20 year average - NASA satellite
data.

 > Sunspot / Galactic radiation / Terran cloud cover - good
 > science, under debate.

 > ALL CO2 greenhouse models violate 2nd law of
thermodynamics
 > and can't reflect reality - looks like good science to
me.

 > IPCC models are not intended to and can't predict
climate -
 >  IPCC top guru.

> You still don't get it.

Well enough, I think.

> It's not about the science or lack thereof of
> global warming.  It's about the PIClist getting barraged
> by lengthy
> unsolicited posts on subjects people didn't come here for.

Your thoughts on the subject are appreciated.
It's good to know I'm on the right track :-)


       R




2008\04\13@232811 by Alexandre Guimar„es

face picon face
Hi, James.

       I think the reason is because people do not want to loose
"electronics engineering" content !!! It is a great part of this list and I
hope it stays this way. "Everything engineering" is not welcome by many
because it always end up almost "religious" !!

       Is it so hard to make a new tag and separate electronics engineering
from everything engineering ? That would solve the problem for both sides on
this discussion.

Best Regards,
Alexandre Guimaraes




-----Mensagem original-----
De: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspamspammit.edu] Em nome de
James Newton
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2008 00:14
Para: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Assunto: RE: [EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he wants

It blows me away that people who can make a PIC dance on the head of a pin
are unable to filter topics by keyword, author, or simply turn off the EE
and OT topics.

Why can people NOT just turn off EE and OT?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\13@232908 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, James Newton wrote:
> Why not turn off EE and OT?

I could turn off OT, but I don't want to have to turn off EE because it
is a good place for one, me to ask questions about my projects and two,
sometimes I see a question I can help with and three, I like reading about
electronics topics that come up.

And I understand where Russel is coming from.  When you get to know a
group you want to include more and more of what matters to you with them.  
THey are your friends, people who you want to tell your opinion to and get
theirs on yours.  Thats why there is an OT board, frankly.. so you can be
social without getting in the way of what the list is meant for.

I'm not going to quit the list because of it, but plenty of people are
going to filter EE and that means those people won't be able to help me or
others who post questions, and that is a loss.  It's a great resource.

--
Ian Smith

2008\04\13@235717 by SM Ling

picon face
| But, Scott, you can turn off OT and EE and ONLY receive PIC tags. Which I

> police VERY strongly.
>
> Why is that not a solution to your problem with the list not being PICy
> enough?
>

>From the voices so far EE is quite valuable, and to many their EE <> Russel
EE.  The microchip forum has a stronger appeal if it for PIC only. I must
also say Russel is very generous and very descriptive when it comes to
normal EE also.  I think it is time to do another tag.

Cheers, Ling SM

2008\04\14@000840 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, SM Ling wrote:
> >From the voices so far EE is quite valuable, and to many their EE <> Russel
> EE.  The microchip forum has a stronger appeal if it for PIC only. I must
> also say Russel is very generous and very descriptive when it comes to
> normal EE also.  I think it is time to do another tag.

The reason I don't turn off EE as I said before, is I find it good
reading except for the GW and related stuff.  The reason I don't filter
RUssel is he is also someone who is helpfull and I want to read his
answers and comments to electrical engineering and PIC stuff.

If we didn't care, we wouldn't whine and moan. :-)

--
Ian Smith

2008\04\14@001219 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face


On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 00:27 -0300, Alexandre Guimarães wrote:
> Hi, James.
>  
>        I think the reason is because people do not want to loose
> "electronics engineering" content !!! It is a great part of this list and I
> hope it stays this way. "Everything engineering" is not welcome by many
> because it always end up almost "religious" !!

Use a threaded email client. See a topic you don't like? Click "delete
thread". Done. No harm, no foul. I don't understand why that is so
difficult?

I for one didn't read much of the GW thread. I wasn't interested, so I
just skipped those messages. WHY this is so difficult for others boggles
my mind.

>        Is it so hard to make a new tag and separate electronics engineering
> from everything engineering ? That would solve the problem for both sides on
> this discussion.

We (the admins) are discussing the options. That said, my worry is
always the slippery slope factor. What about the next thread that argues
science topics shouldn't be in everything engineering? Where does it
end?

TTYL

2008\04\14@001419 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 00:08 -0400, EraseMEpiclistspamspamspamBeGoneian.org wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, SM Ling wrote:
> > >From the voices so far EE is quite valuable, and to many their EE <> Russel
> > EE.  The microchip forum has a stronger appeal if it for PIC only. I must
> > also say Russel is very generous and very descriptive when it comes to
> > normal EE also.  I think it is time to do another tag.
>
> The reason I don't turn off EE as I said before, is I find it good
> reading except for the GW and related stuff.  The reason I don't filter
> RUssel is he is also someone who is helpfull and I want to read his
> answers and comments to electrical engineering and PIC stuff.

Then use a threaded email reader (pretty much all are), sort by thread,
and just read threads you want? You still have EE, and the only time you
waste is pressing that little "delete thread" button. Sounds pretty
simple, doesn't it?

TTYL

2008\04\14@003532 by Rolf

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 00:08 -0400, RemoveMEpiclistKILLspamspamian.org wrote:
>  
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, SM Ling wrote:
>>    
>>
>
> Then use a threaded email reader (pretty much all are), sort by thread,
> and just read threads you want? You still have EE, and the only time you
> waste is pressing that little "delete thread" button. Sounds pretty
> simple, doesn't it?
>
> TTYL
>  


That is similar to what I do, except, it carries the real issue of
'killing' a bunch of unrelates stuff because some people start new
topics in reply to existing 'killed' topics, the '[EE] Dialup login to
ISP help!' is case in point...

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it, yet, there are downsides too...

Rolf

2008\04\14@004142 by Dr Skip

picon face
I applaud the restraint and thought by the admins. I almost expected the usual
(for other lists) "uh-oh, the natives are getting restless - let's squash this
fast" response.

I think the 'religious' part of this comes from readers who view it religiously
(or emotionally), at least as this thread has gone. As you say, filtering
should not be a problem, and I doubt _every_ topic other than GW has had 100%
interest... ;) GW certainly is 'of interest to engineers'.

Tread carefully. There are a lot of ways to lose critical mass, with more tags
being one of them. I find the list useful as a condensation of material (or
thought) available online, without always having to read every word of every
post as some sort of slave to it. Without point-counterpoint, the would be much
less information offered, and I don't always know what I don't know in advance. ;)

Thanks.


Herbert Graf wrote:
> We (the admins) are discussing the options. That said, my worry is
> always the slippery slope factor. What about the next thread that argues
> science topics shouldn't be in everything engineering? Where does it
> end?
>
> TTYL

2008\04\14@010109 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 00:35 -0400, Rolf wrote:
> That is similar to what I do, except, it carries the real issue of
> 'killing' a bunch of unrelates stuff because some people start new
> topics in reply to existing 'killed' topics, the '[EE] Dialup login to
> ISP help!' is case in point...

Well, as the record and movie industries have discovered, filtering is
never perfect.

Even if we had a topic tag system that seemed perfect we'll still have
cases were a message is so close to the edge that some will think it
should be in, while others don't.

We're human, we're all an infinite number of shades of grey, there's no
way around that.

TTYL

2008\04\14@013723 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> That is similar to what I do, except, it carries the real
>> issue of
>> 'killing' a bunch of unrelates stuff because some people
>> start new
>> topics in reply to existing 'killed' topics, the '[EE]
>> Dialup login to
>> ISP help!' is case in point...

> Well, as the record and movie industries have discovered,
> filtering is
> never perfect.
>
> Even if we had a topic tag system that seemed perfect
> we'll still have
> cases were a message is so close to the edge that some
> will think it
> should be in, while others don't.

Let me try this once more.
I try every year or so,
It never works :-).
But -

Could we just perhaps pretty pretty please try another tag
between EE and OT.
It makes perfect sense to me. But, then, it always has :-(.

EE then becomes Electrical Engineering, as everyone tends to
think it is.

TECHO or Science or whatever becomes real world technical
engineering & science stuff that's not electrical related.

OT is as now.

[OLIN]: may wish to dust off his spoof list complete with
[RUSSELL] etc and repost it now to reduce the chance of the
above gaining fraction.

The GW and many other subject now in EE painlessly (for
most) end up in TECHO.
All, except an unsatisfiable few, are happy.

I genuinely don't know what makes this undesirable or hard
or makes it more work for the admins. I mean that. I assume
that it IS undesirable for some reason,   but I can't see
why.

The point in doing this and not relegating the material to
[OT] is that it then gives a *reasonably* pure technical
content channel that isn't noised up with social politics,
war in Iraq, 911, school coupon systems etc.

Those who ridicule this system (as eg Olin has) seem to want
the 'extra' material to go where it is unseen or is not
posted at all rather than giving it an honoured home.

I can well appreciate that GW is seen as religion by many -
but my desires were to present credible material that tends
to suggest that the Jury is still out on the science. I am
neither pro nor anti GW per se - I just want to know the
truth or, that not being possible, see us doing the best we
can to establish reality. Strangely it seems that those who
literally use the term religion in conjunction with GW also
seem to tacitly support the current official approach.
Whatever.



       Russell

2008\04\14@014354 by Rich

picon face
I hate to think that some are trying to silence Russell by driving him from
the list by their own leave.  I think Russell has heard everyone's complaint
by now. Is it not time to call an end to it?


{Original Message removed}

2008\04\14@043943 by Jinx

face picon face
> Why not turn off EE and OT?

Personally I'd prefer it if people didn't turn off the [EE] tag
completely. There are as many [EE] real-world connectivity
issues and posts as program(ming) issues under [PIC] and
both tags need participants

My 'Delete' finger gets as busy as anyone's some mornings but
it's not a huge chore. The odd eye-roll and 'Oh, not that again',
then arrange by thread and boink boink boink out they go

[OT] ? Well, miss some interesting tidbits, a bit of chat, some
of-the-wall stuff, no big loss really

2008\04\14@043943 by Jinx

face picon face
> From the voices so far EE is quite valuable

Well, yes, 'proper' EE as I think of it and as it pertains to my
daily doings with a soldering iron. Regulators, PCBs, FETs,
motors, memory, connectors .......

> personal blog

There's your answer right there

2008\04\14@065801 by Info

flavicon
face
I also like [PIC] and [EE]. But EE in the meaning of Electronic
Engineering. If we could get the bulk of non-electronic sci/
engineering stuff separated from electronics it would be greate.

Currently I have switched off everything but PIC and EE. But I can't
easily get rid of GW and such topics and still keep electronics
enginnering stuff. I do like everything engineering posts but no
time, so I must stay focused on topic for a while.

How about a [SCI] tag where Russel and others can go wild with
everything BUT electronics engineering?

Maybe the mailserver could be set to only send PIC and EE as default.
That means people must sign up for the extra topics (OT, SCI ?, etc)
This might help the ones that can't be botherd to SWITCH OFF the not 100%
PIC-related tags. And leave the other tags for us that wants and thinks
about the list a little bit like a community.

2008\04\14@073525 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:12:06PM -0400, James Newton wrote:
> Why can you not turn off EE and OT?

I'll tell you why. I'll play Devil's Advocate today.

> Why?

Because then you'll start to get topic creep into PIC because posters will
learn that the gurus are only reading items in the [PIC] tagged group.

Then you'll (and rightly so) start your police action to get those topics
out of [PIC].

Posters will get frustrated and so on and so on.

The heart of this particular problem is the semantic meaning of the [EE]
tag. Even if by administrative fiat [EE] is declared "Everything
Engineering" the fact of the matter is that for most of us, and for most
reasonable folks, EE means Electrical/Electronic Engineering. It is quite
eloqently stated in the post below that you responded to.

Which means that lovely items such as GW simply do not semantically fit
under the tag, no matter what stated meaning is given.

That's what has led us here.

So the bottom line as I see it is that in order for the filters to work
properly, they need to match their semantic meanings. There are two
workable solutions:

1) Declare that EE is Electrical/Electronic Engineering with the written
charter that's stated on the PICLIST. Police it and retag topics that do
not fit to OT.

2) Create another tag [OE] for "Other Engineering" as a home for
Engineering/Science topics that are not EE based.

There are two schools of thought about the PICLIST. The first is that it
should have a narrow topic base and should be rigidly policed. The second
is that it's an open social forum for a wide range of topics. Tagging and
filters are supposed to be a mechanism where each group can subscribe to
the content that fits them. But the tags need to fit for that to happen.

Now truthfully I agree with Herbert. When you use a threaded reader, one
click of the mouse or one flick of the wrist is all that's necessary to get
rid of an unwanted topic. I subscribe to everything, and frankly nothing
that is posted really bothers me in the least. However, I humbly offer the
above suggestions as possible solutions to the problem as we move forward.

BAJ

>
> --
> James.
>
> {Original Message removed}

2008\04\14@073945 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>I also like [PIC] and [EE]. But EE in the meaning of
>Electronic
> Engineering. If we could get the bulk of non-electronic
> sci/
> engineering stuff separated from electronics it would be
> greate.

Hooray. Huzzah. Yes please ... :-)

> How about a [SCI] tag where Russel and others can go wild
> with
> everything BUT electronics engineering?

Hooray. Huzzah. Yes please ... :-)

> ... for us that wants and thinks
> about the list a little bit like a community.

   :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)  xxxxxx


           Russell



2008\04\14@074441 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:28:47PM -0400, piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTian.org wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, James Newton wrote:
> > Why not turn off EE and OT?
>
>  I could turn off OT, but I don't want to have to turn off EE because it
> is a good place for one, me to ask questions about my projects and two,
> sometimes I see a question I can help with and three, I like reading about
> electronics topics that come up.

Bingo.

>
> And I understand where Russel is coming from.  When you get to know a
> group you want to include more and more of what matters to you with them.
> THey are your friends, people who you want to tell your opinion to and get
> theirs on yours.  Thats why there is an OT board, frankly.. so you can be
> social without getting in the way of what the list is meant for.

Right on point.

>
> I'm not going to quit the list because of it, but plenty of people are
> going to filter EE and that means those people won't be able to help me or
> others who post questions, and that is a loss.  It's a great resource.

Even worse when they don't get a response, they'll start posting EE
questions under the PIC tag, and then this mess will start all over again.

The EE tag is currently overloaded. Split the tag as Russell has suggested
or relegate anything that's not actually Electrical/Electronic Engineering
to OT.

BAJ

2008\04\14@074623 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> How about a [SCI] tag where Russel and others can go wild with
> everything BUT electronics engineering?

Everything BUT electronics is [OT] I suppose, however, sometimes [EE]
interpreted as Everything Engineering. Personally I do not mind either tag,
I use the subject to read or ignore conversations anyway. Piclist as good as
it is, no point of making strict rules and then let people threatened on
what is ON what is OFF therefore not posting instead even about clear topic.


A possibility to mark conversations as "not interested" - therefore no more
mails to my mailbox with that subject - would be a nice solution I think.

Tamas



On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Info <spamBeGoneinfoSTOPspamspamEraseMEdatech.se> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\14@075226 by Roger, in Bangkok

face
flavicon
face
Sure looks and feels like the most reasonable solution, for the masses, to
me.  As one who lives primarily outside the (all?) box(s) I really
appreciate the need for that one last container for all 'outside the box'
stuff.

Regards/Roger, in Bangkok

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Apptech <KILLspamapptechspamBeGonespamparadise.net.nz> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2008\04\14@081235 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> A possibility to mark conversations as "not interested" - therefore no
> more mails to my mailbox with that subject - would be a nice solution I
> think.

I don't think the mail server has this feature, but the piclist is
available as mail and from a news server (gmane.org), and there are
numerous mail and news readers available that allow you to do this or to
achieve a similar result (like deleting all email with a certain subject,
or marking it as "read").

Gerhard

2008\04\14@081447 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Byron Jeff <EraseMEbyronjeffspamEraseMEclayton.edu> wrote:

> The EE tag is currently overloaded. Split the tag as Russell has suggested
> or relegate anything that's not actually Electrical/Electronic Engineering
> to OT.

Both are fine options to me. But I think Russell's suggestion is more
realistic.

I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one.

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@081657 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Apptech <@spam@apptech@spam@spamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> >I also like [PIC] and [EE]. But EE in the meaning of Electronic
> > Engineering. If we could get the bulk of non-electronic
> > sci/ engineering stuff separated from electronics it would be
> > great.
>
> Hooray. Huzzah. Yes please ... :-)

Yes please ... :-)

> > How about a [SCI] tag where Russel and others can go wild
> > with
> > everything BUT electronics engineering?
>
> Hooray. Huzzah. Yes please ... :-)
> ...
> Russell

Yes please ... :-)

I complete agree with Russell on this one.

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@081847 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM, James Newton <spamBeGonejamesnewtonspamKILLspammassmind.org> wrote:
> Why, Oh why, can you NOT just turn off EE and OT?
>
> Why?

Why do you listen to Russell's suggestion to add one more tag?

> If you only what PIC, why not turn off EE and OT?

For PIC, I'd better go to Microchip Forum.

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@082042 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> 1) Declare that EE is Electrical/Electronic Engineering
> with the written
> charter that's stated on the PICLIST. Police it and retag
> topics that do
> not fit to OT.

The sky falls in sheets of iridescent flame.
The foul stench of erupting Tantalum capacitors fills the
air as the vile smog of their long overdue demise assails
the senses.
Darkness creeps across the face of the land.
Body diodes conduct mega-amperes into the substrate, casting
all calculations to the winds.
The hills melt and flow into the sea.
Nought save haunting melodies remain to remind us of a world
lost forever.

> 2) Create another tag [OE] for "Other Engineering" as a
> home for
> Engineering/Science topics that are not EE based.

Joy blossoms like a bejewelled flower.
Radiant birds sing lyrically in the tree tops.
The welkin is resplendent in iridescent hues.
The first swallow is seen daily.
The Lorentz butterfly flutters through the Azores with none
to say it nay.
In the offing Leviathan frolics and Unicorns cavort in the
meadows.
The list admins ascend the crystal stairways to their places
of honour and adoration to the adulation and acclaim of the
assembled masses.
Bob Blick returns, turns off [OT] and [SCI], holds court
daily and bestows his sagacity on the appreciative throng,
and peace and harmony settle on the face of the land.
Russell outgrabe.

Except:
Olin, unable to restrain himself, subscribes to [SCI] and
sits mumbling about phases of the moon and waving his hands
while hurling the occasional basketful of dead fish at the
assembled joyous throng.
CO2 levels hit 666 ppm yet still the glaciers creep ever
closer. Nobody notices.


       Russell


2008\04\14@083349 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Everything BUT electronics is [OT] I suppose, however, sometimes [EE]
> interpreted as Everything Engineering.

Not sometimes, that is *the* official interpretation. Could be changed,
of course.

Wouter

2008\04\14@083905 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Apptech <.....apptechspam_OUTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > 2) Create another tag [OE] for "Other Engineering" as a
> > home for
> > Engineering/Science topics that are not EE based.
>
> Joy blossoms like a bejewelled flower.
> Radiant birds sing lyrically in the tree tops.
> The welkin is resplendent in iridescent hues.
> The first swallow is seen daily.
> The Lorentz butterfly flutters through the Azores with none
> to say it nay.
> In the offing Leviathan frolics and Unicorns cavort in the
> meadows.
> The list admins ascend the crystal stairways to their places
> of honour and adoration to the adulation and acclaim of the
> assembled masses.

I feel my English is very bad by reading your poems. But I
can understand the ideas and I completely agree that this
is a win-win situation. I think with this change you can also
contribute more to the real [EE] things. And maybe [AVR]
if that tag is still alive.

> Except:
> Olin, unable to restrain himself, subscribes to [SCI] and
> sits mumbling about phases of the moon and waving his hands
> while hurling the occasional basketful of dead fish at the
> assembled joyous throng.
> CO2 levels hit 666 ppm yet still the glaciers creep ever
> closer. Nobody notices.

Not so sure about this one. Olin even boycotts Microchip
forum now because of the strange Score system
(http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=326978).

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@084709 by Robert Ammerman

picon face
Yes, I STRONGLY think we need a new tag. [SCI] or [OE] both sound reasonable
to me. I would then define:

[EE] - Electrical/Electronic engineering. If it doesn't involve electrons
moving around a circuit it doesn't belong. (Could also allow issues like
packaging of said circuits).

[SCI] or [OE] - Any topic whatsoever which has a basis in experimental or
measurable facts. This explicitly includes cases, like GW, where people
disagree over what is a fact!

[OT] - Anything at all, except (real) religious or political topics.

--- Bob Ammerman


2008\04\14@085708 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one.

Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how long before
something else comes up causing another request for another tag? And
then another?

This is the "P" "I" "C" list; the fact that other discussion is here is
VERY useful IMHO, but we have to keep in mind that something may be lost
if so many topic tags start appearing that people can't keep track of
what goes where. What then would be the point of coming here when there
are so many forums that cater to pretty much everything out there?

Amazingly, only 2 tags are causing a firestorm, imagine what 10 tags
would be like?

TTYL

2008\04\14@092844 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> [SCI] or [OE] - Any topic whatsoever which has a basis in
> experimental or
> measurable facts. This explicitly includes cases, like GW,
> where people
> disagree over what is a fact!

I'll bite, although I should just be biting my tongue at
this stage.
If you exclude subjects where real scientists are doing real
science and disagree over facts then you disallow in theory
everything and in practice many things. In true Science
there are NO facts - only theories whose predictions match
observed events more or less closely. In practice there are
many areas where the fine details are under active debate.
The generally accepted age of the universe goes up and down
over time. It's settled down to a fairly stable value for
several years now and is long over due for the next big
discovery that will totally change it. The Higg's boson and
friends are or aren't waiting in the wings to blow away the
current flavours of relevant reality. Neutrinos may or may
not be blowing through the earth, changing colour between 3
hues as they come so that we only see 1/3rd of them in our
detectors - or the sun may have gone out a while ago and not
told us. And neutrinos may have rests mass or may have
imaginary mass or ... . Quantum mechanics never has and is
never allowed to make sense. So too GW, for wont of a better
label, is dependent on much science which can be discussed
rationally and calmly by all those interested saints. And
somewhat rationally and somewhat calmly by the rest of us.
For example, the fact that NASA reports based on NASA
satellite data shows that Antarctic ice melting is at an
almost 20 year low and at 40% of the 20 year average is
something which those interested, if any, could discuss the
implications of. El Nino and La Ninyas and xxx oscillations
and more could be happily exchanged without venturing too
too far into the realms of mysticism and religion. The 112
page peer reviewed report that I tabled that shows that
there is no known CO2 / greenhouse mechanism known to
science is a potential lurch towards the edge but, if some
common sense remains, its merits could be discussed without
having to set up a new religion or join an old one.
Arbitrarily tossing out GW because of the inconvenient
excesses of some smacks of the book burnings of yore.


       Russell




2008\04\14@093447 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on
>> this one.

> Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how
> long before
> something else comes up causing another request for
> another tag? And
> then another?

Possibly at one more tag, possibly at no more.

What would the cost be of trying another tag for a trial
period?
6 months? 3 months?
Long suggested.

I really believe (as I have always done) that this would
enhance the playground and make it more global villageish.
Admittedly 'death by a thousand cuts' is a risk, but not a
certainty, and a trial should show well enough how it works.

I would (rush of blood to the head) be happy to very very
politely help police such an arrangement and notify people
offlist if their posts did not have the proper tagging.
Guided, mais naturelement, by admin rulings.


       Russell


2008\04\14@094145 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
piclist@ian.org wrote:

> The reason I don't filter RUssel is he is also someone who is helpfull
> and I want to read his answers and comments to electrical engineering
> and PIC stuff.

Right. The difference seems to be that I keep that in mind even when
reading posts from him of which I don't think they're relevant for me --
and just ignore them. Russell (like anybody else) comes as a "package". If
you don't like the package, just filter it out. If you do like it, accept
it as it is :)

FWIW, I don't filter out anything or anybody. I just ignore threads that
are not of interest to me. Depending on the phase, I read between 0% and
50% of the list, and the percentage simply reflects how much I'm willing to
spend on it. Discussing this issue (or even reading the posts of this
discussion) probably takes longer than it the time I spend on ignoring all
threads I'm not interested in during a whole year. Think about this when
complaining about something like this next time -- in terms of engineering
and efficiency.

You don't have to read everything you receive, even as a list subscriber :)

Gerhard

2008\04\14@094247 by SM Ling

picon face
>
> [EE] - Electrical/Electronic engineering. If it doesn't involve electrons
> moving around a circuit it doesn't belong. (Could also allow issues like
> packaging of said circuits).
>

Maybe EE for Embedded/Electrical/Electronics engineering

2008\04\14@094637 by Forums

flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
>On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one.
>
>Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how long before
>something else comes up causing another request for another tag? And
>then another?
>
>This is the "P" "I" "C" list; the fact that other discussion is here is
>VERY useful IMHO, but we have to keep in mind that something may be lost
>if so many topic tags start appearing that people can't keep track of
>what goes where. What then would be the point of coming here when there
>are so many forums that cater to pretty much everything out there?
>
>Amazingly, only 2 tags are causing a firestorm, imagine what 10 tags
>would be like?

Totally agree... If Russell were to only count the number of people
that have voiced an opinion that the GW thread belongs in [OT] instead
of [EE], compare that to the count of people who claim it's actually
good engineering content and apply some democracy, there wouldn't be
a problem.

So far he has failed to do this, which IMO demonstrates a total lack of
respect for his peers, and leads me to have little or no expectation
that he would use [SCI] or other tags properly either.

The stigma [OT] has is unfounded. This is PICList, mainly subscribed to
by Engineers. Therefore the PICList [OT] can be better described as
"Off Topic that Engineers might find interesting". This is not a bad
place for a thread to be.

I like the idea of [EE] encompassing non-electrical engineering, in the
context of "Everything Engineering" but when we drift off into
politics, Nazis, conspiracy theories etc. it is unquestionably OT.

Science (Pure or Pseudo) <> Engineering

It would be far safer to introduce these Environmental Science and
Physical Science subjects into [OT] and should we be lucky enough that
a branch of discussion enters back into real engineering, at that
point, bring that part of it back into [EE].

I've been lurking for a few months, as a noob PIC hobbyist and think
the list and its contributing members (including Russell) offer true
value to those who need to learn (such as myself).

Andy.

2008\04\14@100640 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Herbert Graf <TakeThisOuTmailinglist4.....spamTakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one.
>
> Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how long before
> something else comes up causing another request for another tag? And
> then another?
>
> This is the "P" "I" "C" list;

Exactly, this is "P" "I" "C" list so PIC topics and electronic engineering
topics should be the focus.

I understand Russell has his point since he firmly believes
he is trying to do what he felt is best for the world. Why not
try to do a small favor to us who firmly believe that another
tag is the best for "P" "I" "C" list?

Do not forget the admins have many tags created already which
are underused, like [ARM] and [AVR]. Why not create a new
one which at least Russell is heavily using?

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@100849 by olin piclist

face picon face
James Newton wrote:
> Why, Oh why, can you NOT just turn off EE and OT?
>
> Why?

Because there are things on EE that many people doing PIC work do want to
hear.  I guess even the occasional brief post pointing to new research on
global warming or other PIC-unrelated topics wouldn't be a problem.  It's
the excessive pontification and resulting pointless dicussions that have
gotten irritating.  That and the general feeling that this has more and more
become the Russell list instead of the PIC list.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\14@104546 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 22:06 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Herbert Graf <TakeThisOuTmailinglist4KILLspamspamspamfarcite.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > > I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one.
> >
> > Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how long before
> > something else comes up causing another request for another tag? And
> > then another?
> >
> > This is the "P" "I" "C" list;
>
> Do not forget the admins have many tags created already which
> are underused, like [ARM] and [AVR]. Why not create a new
> one which at least Russell is heavily using?

Underused tags don't concern us, since they don't cause a problem very
often. I don't think anyone can claim that if an additional tag were
introduced that more closely matched what Russell's posts encompass that
it would be underused.

That said Xiofan, you didn't answer my question: where does it end?
Basically you're asking for a Russell oriented tag. Fine, what next? 2
months from now another poster may be interested in posting OT threads,
but instead of putting them in OT where they belong (what is so wrong
with the OT tag, noone seems to want to use it), they put them in the
Russell tag. So, another tag should be created? And then another? Should
we just have a tag for every thread?

FWIW I believe we are leaning towards adding an additional tag and
redefining the current tags, but a decision has not been made.

Now, what follows are just my personal opinions and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the Admins:

I love the PICLIST, it is by far the best resource related to my
profession that I have (except maybe google). I believe it is as good as
it is because it has remained relatively focused on EE and CE type
topics. The OT stuff is interesting sometimes, but I don't see why it
should be given the preference in content some feel it should.  If you
want to really discuss that sort of stuff there are probably millions of
forums to choose from out there.

TTYL

2008\04\14@104615 by olin piclist

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
> Could we just perhaps pretty pretty please try another tag
> between EE and OT.

Or better yet, just shut up already about off topics.

Or at least if you get this feeling that you've stumbled accross some new
research that everyone would of course be interested in or should be for
their own good (that's the arrogant part I mentioned), just post a link with
a quick sentence indicating what it's about so others can decide to follow
the link or not.  Even copying one or two salient paragraphs for most of us
(like me) usually too lazy or busy to follow the link is OK with me.

But unless you are actively envolved with the topic and truly a "expert", I
don't give a crap what you think about it, and I definitely don't want to
hear what you think I should think about it.

For example, you are envolved with the Bogo light, and I therefore found
your analysis of the various environmental footprint tradeoffs interesting.
You had done some personal research and much more thinking and examining the
tradeoffs in a real situation than most of us here, so there was reason to
listen to your conclusions.

However unless I'm very mistaken, you're not a global warming researcher, so
pontificating on what I should think and what someone else's research means
to me is worse than a waste of time.  You are no more qualified than me and
most other people here to decide what it all means.  As a result, other
people chime in with their different and equally irrelevant analysis.
Everyone feels no less qualified to give their opinion than the next person,
so they feel compelled to do so when their point of view is attacked.  In
other words, it becomes a religious discussion even though it's about a
scientific topic.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\14@104629 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > I do not understand why the admins are so stubborn on this one.
>
> Where does it end Xiaofan? Assume we add another tag, how long before
> something else comes up causing another request for another tag? And
> then another?

Tag creep is certainly an issue. But I think this is a special case due to
semantic misinterpretation. It would be like folks posting Avionics stuff
into the AVR forum because AVR stands for: Avionics Virtual Reality. I mean
you can call it whatever you want but the inferred meaning in most folks
mind doesn't change.

> This is the "P" "I" "C" list; the fact that other discussion is here is
> VERY useful IMHO, but we have to keep in mind that something may be lost
> if so many topic tags start appearing that people can't keep track of
> what goes where. What then would be the point of coming here when there
> are so many forums that cater to pretty much everything out there?
>
> Amazingly, only 2 tags are causing a firestorm, imagine what 10 tags
> would be like?

If the new tag is decidedly a generic catch all, then you won't get tag
creep. It's possible to bound this new tag:

A discussion of science, technology, and engineering topics that falls
outside of the scope of electrical/electronics engineering.

It's not so broadly bounded as to be completely off topic. However it
segregates electrical/electronics engineering, which is much more closely
PIC related than these other areas, into isolation.

So Avionics, Global warming, rocketry, and other science/tech/engineering
topics would fit nicely while analog, PCBs, motors, and other topics of a
electrical/electronic engineering bent would go to EE.

You don't need 10 more tags. Honestly, and I'm sure that Russell will
disagree, it really can be done with the existing tags we have. But one
more tag will subdivide the topic areas into groupings that folks seem to
cater to. PIC and EE for the narrow focused, PIC, EE, and SCI/TECH for
those with a broader base, and everything for those who don't care.

But in my mind, either administratively, or by additional tags, the issue
does need to be resolved. Bob Blick leaving isn't a good thing. Scott
Dattalo not participating isn't a good thing.

So if adding one tag can fix it, then let's do that.

BAJ

2008\04\14@104710 by Richard Seriani, Sr.

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <.....mailinglist4spamRemoveMEfarcite.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistspamspamBeGonemit.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Un-subscribbling so Russell can play all he wants


{Quote hidden}

I agree that the addition of tags may not be the answer.

>From the web site, "The PICList is a collection of people interested in the
Microchip PIC and other similar processors..."

How about just letting this list revert to being a PIC list with the current
(short) list of microcontrollers thrown in? Delete (or more closely define)
the [EE] tag and make everything else [OT].

While I enjoy a lot of the electrical engineering discussion, and I would
miss those posts, there may be a list somewhere that is designed for that
subject. If not, there must be a budding sysadmin on this list who would
JUMP at the chance to start one.

I retired from the U.S.Navy over 21 years ago. We had a saying that "a
bitching sailor is a happy sailor". If that flows over into civilian life,
we have some ecstatic folks on this list.

Richard







2008\04\14@105138 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:26:32AM -0400, Apptech wrote:
> > [SCI] or [OE] - Any topic whatsoever which has a basis in
> > experimental or
> > measurable facts. This explicitly includes cases, like GW,
> > where people
> > disagree over what is a fact!
>
> I'll bite, although I should just be biting my tongue at  this stage.

Yes Russell, you should be biting your tongue at this stage.

> If you exclude subjects where real scientists are doing real
> science and disagree over facts then you disallow in theory
> everything and in practice many things.

You should be biting your tongue because you didn't carefully read the
above suggestion. Let me repeat (emphesis mine):

>> [SCI] or [OE] - Any topic whatsoever which has a basis in experimental
>> or measurable facts. This EXPLICITLY INCLUDES cases, like GW, where
>> people disagree over what is a fact!

Includes, Not excludes.

Russell, you're too close to this discussion. I suggest that you go chill
while it gets hashed out.

BAJ

2008\04\14@105632 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
A

>... If Russell were to only count the number of people
> that have voiced an opinion that the GW thread belongs in
> [OT] instead
> of [EE], compare that to the count of people who claim
> it's actually
> good engineering content and apply some democracy, there
> wouldn't be
> a problem.

> So far he has failed to do this,

Ya reckon?
And, do you think that your counting and mine would tally ?
:-)

> which IMO demonstrates a total lack of
> respect for his peers,

A poll of list members based on my past history may,
perhaps, suggest otherwise.
If you have been lurking as long as you say I'll have to
excuse that comment as mere oversight - besides, you're too
far away to challenge you to mortal combat with whatever it
is that Floridians use for duelling :-).

> and leads me to have little or no expectation
> that he would use [SCI] or other tags properly either.

I'll ignore the "either". And I'll even ignore the more than
implict slur in "little or no"
Apart from that, I assure you that your leading misleads
you.
[TECHO] or [SCI] or whatever would be sacred ground to me
and I'd happily defend and use it.
Much more rigorously than eg you are doing by posting this
in EE. (As I'm replying to it in EE we pots and kettles will
just have to be all black together).

> The stigma [OT] has is unfounded.

The term "stigma" is yours, not mine.
And the statement is in fact an opinion.
My opinion differs.
No surprise I'm sure :-).

MANY people do not subscribe to OT because it is filled with
religious-religious, religious-other, political and even sex
related discussions that have no relationship to engineering
and science. What I would dearly love to see is a forum here
where the global villagers can discuss the wider areas of
engineering and science. I am an electrical engineer by
genetic compulsion and I would be very pleased indeed to
have an area that was truly electrical engineering related -
free from lesser matters such as science, OT and PICs.

> This is PICList, mainly subscribed to
> by Engineers. Therefore

non sequitur

> the PICList [OT] can be better described as
> "Off Topic that Engineers might find interesting". This is
> not a bad
> place for a thread to be.

As above.
That's an opinion.
And, as above, not one that I agree with.
There is utterly no reason that you have to agree with me,
but you do need to recognise that your opinions carry as
little value in absolute terms as mine do :-).

> I like the idea of [EE] encompassing non-electrical
> engineering, in the
> context of "Everything Engineering" but when we drift off
> into
> politics, Nazis, conspiracy theories etc. it is
> unquestionably OT.

> Science (Pure or Pseudo) <> Engineering

And yet, you are suggesting, and  expecting me to agree,
that science should be in with the Nazis, conspiracy
theories and politics.

> It would be far safer to introduce these Environmental
> Science and
> Physical Science subjects into [OT] and should we be lucky
> enough that
> a branch of discussion enters back into real engineering,
> at that
> point, bring that part of it back into [EE].

That is in fact exactly what I did and exactly what started
this furore.
So far nobody arguing the "anti" line, as you are, has seen
fit to comment on my repeatedly raised example of a NASA
report, based on NASA satellite data, which related to
Antarctic ice melting. That, surely, is as real as the data
gets but BB called it pseudo science and that was the 'last
straw", he said, that caused him to leave. It's easy to say
things such as the above but the BB / NASA example
demonstrates that they don't translate into real world
tolerance.

And fwiw, and it's probably not worth much, GW promises to
be THE largest engineering effort, guided or misguided, EVER
undertaken by manunkind. Many seem to be either happy with
this or uncaring.



       R




2008\04\14@110215 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Herbert Graf <spamBeGonemailinglist4@spam@spamspam_OUTfarcite.net> wrote:
> Now, what follows are just my personal opinions and do not necessarily
> reflect the opinions of the Admins:
>
> I love the PICLIST, it is by far the best resource related to my
> profession that I have (except maybe google). I believe it is as good as
> it is because it has remained relatively focused on EE and CE type
> topics. The OT stuff is interesting sometimes, but I don't see why it
> should be given the preference in content some feel it should.  If you
> want to really discuss that sort of stuff there are probably millions of
> forums to choose from out there.
>

If James has the same opinion like you, PIClist will be a better list.
However I do not think James has the same view as you since he
himself like those WOT stuff. And he thinks since Russell is trying
to do what he felt is best for the world so he can tolerate Russell.
So now we create a special tag for Russell so everyone is happy.
Why not?

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@111345 by Loper, Chris

flavicon
face
James writes:

> Why, Oh why, can you NOT just turn off EE and OT?

> Why?

> If you only what PIC, why not turn off EE and OT?



Because (I feel sure), almost everyone on this list

IS interested in transistors, LEDs and circuits and ...

Electronics Engineering.



Some not so interested in GW, etc.



Russell is upset. Bob is upset (maybe gone). You are upset.

Why not restore [EE] to ELECTRONICS Engineering and

make another tag for general [ENG], and put an end to all of this.





2008\04\14@111532 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 23:00 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> If James has the same opinion like you, PIClist will be a better list.
> However I do not think James has the same view as you since he
> himself like those WOT stuff. And he thinks since Russell is trying
> to do what he felt is best for the world so he can tolerate Russell.
> So now we create a special tag for Russell so everyone is happy.
> Why not?

You have still not answered my question Xiaofan.

While it may not have a definite answer, have you at least considered
the consequences of not asking the question?

TTYL

2008\04\14@113437 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
My thoughts on this topic are in [OT] as I presume them to be
off-topic.  In short:

40% of the list is EE threads since Nov 2004.  A new topic will help
because those with less time will be able to focus their resources
more effectively.

We will not die the death of a thousand papercuts if a simple policy
is followed: topics with greater than 30% list bandwith are considered
for split if it's obvious where a split should occur.  Topics with
less than 5-10% bandwidth are considered for moving into a larger
topic.

A much longer version of the above now resides in [OT].

But above all, let's hope a decision is made and published soon so we
can get rid of this meta discussion.  By my measure, it shouldn't be
in EE anyway - just because someone wants a larger audience is no
reason to use the wrong tag.

-Adam

--
http://www.driveslowly.org - save $0.50 per gallon by sloing down.

2008\04\14@113728 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Apptech wrote:
> > The stigma [OT] has is unfounded.
>
> The term "stigma" is yours, not mine.
> And the statement is in fact an opinion.
> My opinion differs.
> No surprise I'm sure :-).
[..SNIP..]
> > I like the idea of [EE] encompassing non-electrical
> > engineering, in the context of "Everything Engineering"
> > but when we drift off into
> > politics, Nazis, conspiracy theories etc. it is
> > unquestionably OT.
>
> And yet, you are suggesting, and  expecting me to agree,
> that science should be in with the Nazis, conspiracy
> theories and politics.

If I recall, you were the one to bring up Nazis and are the one posting
consparicy theories and politics, so not wanting to associate with those
topics is a little odd. :-)

But seriously now, you compared moving your GW thread into OT to being
under Nazi rule, and being attacked by terrorists.  That seems to indicate
you feel the OT tag is some terrible, awful place to send a discussion.  
I won't get into how I feel about being compared to a Nazi or a terrorist
because I disagree about what tag a subject belongs under!

--
Ian Smith

2008\04\14@114432 by Roger, in Bangkok

face
flavicon
face
No, no, no, no ... he can't have it all to himself!

I want at least equal equity :-))

Regards/Roger, in Bangkok

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Xiaofan Chen <TakeThisOuTxiaofancspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> ...
> ...
> So now we create a special tag for Russell so everyone is happy.
> Why not?
>
> Xiaofan
>

2008\04\14@114617 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> That said Xiofan, you didn't answer my question: where does it end?

I think (as others have pointed out) that a split between Electrical
Engineering and other engineering would conveniently separate the
current EE traffic. Maybe also split engineering from science, but I
admit that would be more difficult to define.

In my experience the PIClist is one of the least suited places to
convince people. So for all proponents and opponents of GW actions,
NuclearEnergy, Iraq war, etc: why post here at all? Most PIClisters have
a firm opinion on these matters, which your post won't change. So why
not take your writings elsewhere, or devote your energy to technical (!=
scientific, whichever definition you might use for that) issues?

Wouter van Ooijen

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

2008\04\14@123148 by Forums

flavicon
face
Russell wrote:
>A poll of list members based on my past history may,
>perhaps, suggest otherwise.

I'm talking about your stubbornness in keeping the GW thread in [EE], not
your past history. And no poll is needed... review the number of people who
have found it necessary to involve themselves in this matter, and nearly all
with the opinion that the GW thread belongs in [OT].

I realize you are passionate about the GW issue, but that alone should have
raised a flag to you that it is NOT suitable [EE] topic matter. The lack of
Engineering content is a simple one to spot too.

Personally I'm much happier monitoring a discussion on GW with people that
are actually qualified to be part of the discussion. For that, there are
plenty of forums more suitable than one made up of PIC users. Anyway,
Godwin's law applies... as soon as you mentioned the Nazis on an internet
forum, you've lost the argument... whatever it was. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

>If you have been lurking as long as you say I'll have to
>excuse that comment as mere oversight - besides, you're too
>far away to challenge you to mortal combat with whatever it
>is that Floridians use for duelling :-).

I joined just over 5 months to the day, and have enjoyed a number of your
past [EE] posts, because of their Engineering, rather than General Sciences
/ Political bend.

>> and leads me to have little or no expectation
>> that he would use [SCI] or other tags properly either.

>[TECHO] or [SCI] or whatever would be sacred ground to me
>and I'd happily defend and use it.

I fail to see why you would do that, but don't consider [EE] sacred ground?
Is just because [EE] isn't moderated and you can get away with it?

>Much more rigorously than eg you are doing by posting this
>in EE. (As I'm replying to it in EE we pots and kettles will
>just have to be all black together).

Reasons to continue the discussion about topic suitability inside [EE] have
already been given.

{Quote hidden}

Fine, and I think you should have raised this point earlier; from your prior
posts on the matter it had appeared to me your issue with OT was simply
there isn't enough [OT] readers to annoy. Anyhow 'Science' doesn't belong in
that sentence... By listing science separately to engineering, you obviously
agree that they are NOT the same thing. Regardless of the arguments about
what the [EE] tag actually means, this much I am certain of... One of those
'E's is for engineering and neither of them are for science.

So, just because you have a url to a NASA page, and that page has a very
firm footing in Science, that does not make it engineering, therefore it is
offtopic.

>What I would dearly love to see is a forum here where
>the global villagers can discuss the wider areas of
>engineering and science. I am an electrical engineer by
>genetic compulsion and I would be very pleased indeed
>to have an area that was truly electrical engineering
>related - free from lesser matters such as science, OT and PICs.

I surely hope the purpose of your massive [EE] GW thread assault was not
simply to set the stage for a [SCI] forum, because there were far better,
and less painful ways of achieving this.

{Quote hidden}

Erm, it was you who brought the Nazis into [EE], I didn't realize they were
already in [OT], but yes, as it stands right now, without a [SCI] forum, sex
& science would lay together in [OT]. I'll concede that this situation
should be improved, but until/if it ever is, PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES.

{Quote hidden}

Again, those NASA urls look like solid science, but nada on the engineering
front. Therefore they are [OT]

This is quite simple isn't it?  Engineering to [EE], and science isn't
engineering.

>And fwiw, and it's probably not worth much, GW promises to
>be THE largest engineering effort, guided or misguided, EVER
>undertaken by manunkind. Many seem to be either happy with
>this or uncaring.

When you want to discuss the engineering details of any specific effort,
tool, invention or problem rather than the Environmental Science or
Political aspects of GW, that would be a good time bring it into to [EE].
I'm not belittling the GW issue, just arguing that what you present is not
engineering, the link to engineering you are describing above is a reach.

Andy.

2008\04\14@124255 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I won't get into how I feel about being compared to a Nazi
> or a terrorist
> because I disagree about what tag a subject belongs under!

Ian

       CC James

I'll send this offlist as I'm more liable to inflame others
if I post this publicly.

My apologies if you thought that that comparison was
intended for you. It wasn't. I tried to make it very clear
what the bounds of the comparison were. I thought and think
that it was a realistic one to make. I realised that it was
potentially highly emotive so I bounded it with some care.

As I have said separately previously, you (and I mentioned
you by name) were one of the few of opposing view who
actually addressed the issues under consideration. I noted
that I appreciated that.

The Nazi / terrorist comparison related to the use of
tactics not related to the subject matter proper to achieve
traction. You did OK, and I said so, even if I disagreed
with your general premise.

Hopefully the list will be a better place once we get
through this session. Bob seems always to violently agree
with almost anything I say and I regret that. Hopefully
we'll all be able to live together a little more happily in
future.

Again, my apologies for the impression I gave



       Russell



2008\04\14@125134 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I'll send this offlist as I'm more liable to inflame
> others if I post this publicly.

...

Aaagh. Oops. That's what happens when I get up at 4;30am to
change some batteries in a test rig and decide to check my
email.
That was meant to be offlist - sorry again. Hopefully no
harm done.

Waves a dead fish and leaves ...


       Russell



2008\04\14@130545 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Apptech wrote:
> > I'll send this offlist as I'm more liable to inflame
> > others if I post this publicly.
>
> ...
>
> Aaagh. Oops. That's what happens when I get up at 4;30am to
> change some batteries in a test rig and decide to check my
> email.
> That was meant to be offlist - sorry again. Hopefully no
> harm done.

I've done worse. :-)

I know you didn't literally mean it, but it's one of those touchy things
that you don't want to come even close to using when talking about
someone, it can generate bad feelings unintentionaly.  Kind of like how
people in politics try to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I avoid
those sorts of comparisons.  Well try to anyway, easy to slip one in.

--
Ian Smith

2008\04\14@133026 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:45:19AM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

It's not just a Russell oriented tag. I've spent quite a bit of time here
talking about nuclear technology for example. While it's been in the OT
area, it would fit well under this SCI/TECH tag we've been discussing.

> Fine, what next? 2
> months from now another poster may be interested in posting OT threads,
> but instead of putting them in OT where they belong (what is so wrong
> with the OT tag, noone seems to want to use it), they put them in the
> Russell tag.

If the thread is under SCI/TECH then there's no issue.

If not, then like anything else it needs to go to OT.

BTW to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with OT topics. I
suggested that a workable alternative is to declare EE as only
Electrical/Electronics Engineering, and shunt everything else to OT.

> So, another tag should be created? And then another? Should
> we just have a tag for every thread?

No. No. and No. Non Electrical engineering tech/science/engineering is
sufficient to catch the vast majority of the topics in question. OT takes
care of the rest.

There isn't a need for tag proliferation if the SCI/TECH tag is definied
broad enough and the EE tag enforced narrowly enough.

> FWIW I believe we are leaning towards adding an additional tag and
> redefining the current tags, but a decision has not been made.

Good.

{Quote hidden}

All true. But I think that it misses some of the social aspect of the
list. While there are millions of other forums, those forums do not have
the collection of folks that I interact with on close to a daily basis.

The tagging system and the ability to have the list server not even send
posts that are tagged with certain tags (as James has been suggesting
repetitively) can eliminate that content for anyone who wishes it.

BAJ

2008\04\14@183621 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist4EraseMEspamspam_OUTfarcite.net> wrote:

> That said Xiofan, you didn't answer my question: where does it end?
> Basically you're asking for a Russell oriented tag. Fine, what next? 2
> months from now another poster may be interested in posting OT threads,
> but instead of putting them in OT where they belong (what is so wrong
> with the OT tag, noone seems to want to use it), they put them in the
> Russell tag. So, another tag should be created? And then another? Should
> we just have a tag for every thread?

Not really. Another tag for those topics will do. Russell has mentioned
that he can help admin that tag.

> FWIW I believe we are leaning towards adding an additional tag and
> redefining the current tags, but a decision has not been made.

Hopefully this is true.

{Quote hidden}

I again I appreciate your response.

Just remember that this is "PICList".

Xiaofan

2008\04\14@183753 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Herbert Graf <@spam@mailinglist4RemoveMEspamEraseMEfarcite.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 23:00 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > If James has the same opinion like you, PIClist will be a better list.
> > However I do not think James has the same view as you since he
> > himself like those WOT stuff. And he thinks since Russell is trying
> > to do what he felt is best for the world so he can tolerate Russell.
> > So now we create a special tag for Russell so everyone is happy.
> > Why not?
>
> You have still not answered my question Xiaofan.

I answered in the previous one. One more tag will do.

> While it may not have a definite answer, have you at least considered
> the consequences of not asking the question?

I do not understand this question.

Xiaofan

2008\04\15@065545 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 4/14/08, James Newton <EraseMEjamesnewtonspam@spam@massmind.org> wrote:
> Why not turn off EE and OT?
>
> Why?

Let me explain you with my poor english. Being short maybe it will be concise.
Piclist (and any other groups on web) is an ilness.
Any people who is answering here is more or less sick having this disease.
PIC subject is almost dissipearing on piclist mostly because the PIC
is a mature product being on the falling down existential curve.
As long this ill is asking for writting and reading emails (but mostly
for writting), the only tag available is OT or EE.

satisfied?

2008\04\15@072517 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Vasile Surducan <@spam@piclist9spam_OUTspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> PIC subject is almost dissipearing on piclist mostly because the PIC
> is a mature product being on the falling down existential curve.

Just look at Microchip Forum and other PIC related forum and
you will know that it is only PIClist is going the down trend.

Xiaofan

2008\04\15@082122 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 4/15/08, Xiaofan Chen <spamBeGonexiaofancEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Vasile Surducan <piclist9spamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
> > PIC subject is almost dissipearing on piclist mostly because the PIC
> > is a mature product being on the falling down existential curve.
>
> Just look at Microchip Forum and other PIC related forum and
> you will know that it is only PIClist is going the down trend.


Microchip forum has about 70% answers for beginners. There are a few
people who need to read carefully the page linked below.  Is just an
observation, I've been inside the problem answering a few years on
jallist. Wasted time.

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=b436303d-e3ba-46a5-86ae-46ef80db6248

greetings
Vasile

2008\04\15@083351 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Forums wrote:

> Russell wrote:
>>A poll of list members based on my past history may,
>>perhaps, suggest otherwise.
>
> I'm talking about your stubbornness in keeping the GW thread in [EE],
> not your past history. And no poll is needed... review the number of
> people who have found it necessary to involve themselves in this matter,
> and nearly all with the opinion that the GW thread belongs in [OT].

That's possibly because many people read selectively, don't care either way
and just ignore the thread. Of course the ones who get involved are
primarily the ones who want something to be changed. You need to be careful
with statistics (and that's also an engineering issue :)

Gerhard

2008\04\15@083917 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> In my experience the PIClist is one of the least suited places to
> convince people. So for all proponents and opponents of GW actions,
> NuclearEnergy, Iraq war, etc: why post here at all? Most PIClisters have
> a firm opinion on these matters, which your post won't change. So why
> not take your writings elsewhere, [...]?

Depends on what you want from a discussion. I don't want to convince
people, I want to hear what good arguments people have who don't share my
opinion. This is a good place for this.

Gerhard

2008\04\15@084629 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Vasile Surducan wrote:

> Microchip forum has about 70% answers for beginners. There are a few
> people who need to read carefully the page linked below.  Is just an

:) done that

I can say that I take the Microchip Forum like a group of colleagues.
I've been and am currently into several online communities. I and can
say I have a quite large or anyway average circle of friends in real life.
I work on my own, by the way.
I simply believe that, on the internet, you can take the best from
people, and avoid the worst. I can help people and be helped, and yet I
don't need to spend much time with them - if I don't want to. And I
guess that it is the same to other people on the net.

So, yeah, it's good for me.

I also have to say that I believe that Italy is such a crazy place to
live that escaping from here would be most preferable... and doing so on
the forums, chat etc is pretty appreciable :)

--
Ciao, Dario -- ADPM Synthesis sas -- http://www.adpm.tk

2008\04\15@084857 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Vasile Surducan <RemoveMEpiclist9@spam@spamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:

>  > Just look at Microchip Forum and other PIC related forum and
>  > you will know that it is only PIClist is going the down trend.
>  Microchip forum has about 70% answers for beginners.

I only monitor a few "more advanced" sections on Microchip forum
along with answering some simple questions about development tools.
There are quite good topics around. Same for PIClist.

And Microchip is no longer the PIC12/16 company. There are many
new things now.

> There are a few
>  people who need to read carefully the page linked below.  Is just an
>  observation, I've been inside the problem answering a few years on
>  jallist. Wasted time.
>
>  http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=b436303d-e3ba-46a5-86ae-46ef80db6248

This is true. But my involvement with Microchip forum is quite positive.
Get to know more people and learned quite a lot. Same for PIClist.
It is just that I ignore more and more topics in PIClist.

Xiaofan

2008\04\15@085054 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Gerhard Fiedler
<.....lists@spam@spamEraseMEconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>
>  > In my experience the PIClist is one of the least suited places to
>  > convince people. So for all proponents and opponents of GW actions,
>  > NuclearEnergy, Iraq war, etc: why post here at all? Most PIClisters have
>  > a firm opinion on these matters, which your post won't change. So why
>  > not take your writings elsewhere, [...]?
>
>  Depends on what you want from a discussion. I don't want to convince
>  people, I want to hear what good arguments people have who don't share my
>  opinion. This is a good place for this.
>

I still believe this is the wrong place. However, I am going to live with the
current situation. A new tag is of course better than nothing.

Xiaofan

2008\04\15@090709 by KPL

picon face
Hello, isn't it allready enough?
Offtopic about offtopic is offtopic too :)

--
KPL

2008\04\15@092108 by Forums

flavicon
face
>> Russell wrote:
>>>A poll of list members based on my past history may,
>>>perhaps, suggest otherwise.
>>
>> I'm talking about your stubbornness in keeping the GW thread in [EE],
>> not your past history. And no poll is needed... review the number of
>> people who have found it necessary to involve themselves in this matter,
>> and nearly all with the opinion that the GW thread belongs in [OT].

Gerhard wrote:
>That's possibly because many people read selectively, don't care either way
>and just ignore the thread.

Indeed. However, I only care about the people who care, for they are the
only ones suffering.

>Of course the ones who get involved are
>primarily the ones who want something to be changed. You need to be careful
>with statistics (and that's also an engineering issue :)

There is a sufficient volume (by my casual inspection, the majority) of
posts in the GW thread and others that spawned from it providing an opposing
view, that if you supported Russell's position (it is only due to semantics
that Science is not the same thing as Engineering, therefore GW is on-topic
for [EE]), you would want that viewpoint changed and would post in support
of Russell's assertions. In that respect, I believe my 'democracy' point
holds: no poll is required.

This morning I am glad to report that once again, I am thoroughly enjoying
Russell's on-topic posts in [EE], and for that, I thank him. I was however
disappointed when I looked back at the last 2 weeks of PICList [OT] threads
to find a distinct lack of Nazi and Sexual content as Russell had claimed
would be there.... I guess some months are better than others. :-)

Andy.

2008\04\15@105959 by Robert Ammerman

picon face
>>> I'm talking about your stubbornness in keeping the GW thread in [EE],
>>> not your past history. And no poll is needed... review the number of
>>> people who have found it necessary to involve themselves in this matter,
>>> and nearly all with the opinion that the GW thread belongs in [OT].

my "vote"...

I don't think the GW thread is [OT]. I feel it is (barely) [EE], but I would
strongly prefer to see it in [OE] or [ENG] or [SCI] or whatever.

--- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2008\04\15@111359 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>>>A poll of list members based on my past history may,
>>>>perhaps, suggest otherwise.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about your stubbornness in keeping the GW
>>> thread in [EE],
>>> not your past history. And no poll is needed... review
>>> the number of
>>> people who have found it necessary to involve themselves
>>> in this matter,
>>> and nearly all with the opinion that the GW thread
>>> belongs in [OT].

... and more current additions ...

I'll refrain from apposite comment on this ongoing subject.
Much as I like the idea of going for "largest number of EE
posts on the same subject with Russell's name in the subject
line" award I rather suspect that the need to keep this in
[EE] any longer is well past.

If you desire to further denigrate me and ascribe various
interesting motives and mindsets would you please do so in
OT. I'll consider the wisdom of then coming and playing
there, or not.

Appropos of other things - The last OT mention of sex
appears to have been in March and it was a fairly transient
one :-).



       Russell

2008\04\15@155508 by James Newton

face picon face
I must say, that may well be the most brilliant thing Olin has ever posted
to the PICList. I absolutely and totally agree. Hats off.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\15@183741 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
James Newton wrote:

> I must say, that may well be the most brilliant thing Olin has ever posted
> to the PICList. I absolutely and totally agree. Hats off.

Yeah, me too :)

Though I may enjoy some topics by Russell as well, from time to time :)

--
Ciao, Dario -- ADPM Synthesis sas -- http://www.adpm.tk

2008\04\18@035746 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> In my experience the PIClist is one of the least suited places to
>> convince people. So for all proponents and opponents of GW actions,
>> NuclearEnergy, Iraq war, etc: why post here at all? Most PIClisters have
>> a firm opinion on these matters, which your post won't change. So why
>> not take your writings elsewhere, [...]?
>
> Depends on what you want from a discussion. I don't want to convince
> people, I want to hear what good arguments people have who don't share my
> opinion. This is a good place for this.

Agreed.

And FWIW, discussions on this list have changed or strongly influenced my
opinions on various subjects. Wouter's suggestion that the PICList consists
of mostly closed-minded people is incorrect, IMHO.

Vitaliy

2008\04\18@074505 by Rich

picon face
There is a saying that I recall about trying to convince people to change
their position on matters they hold close.  It goes like this:  "A man
convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  I have found it
to be quite accurate.  Yes, Gerhard, you are right on, "the PIClist is one
of the least suited places to convince people."

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\18@101858 by Dr Skip

picon face
The value of the discussion, at least here, is not in the convincing. It's in
seeing new ways of looking at the issue or problem. It's in seeing how "the
other side" thinks and argues about their 'side'. It's in adding to your
repertoire of arguments for your 'side'. Of limited external use is the
exposure of the person behind the comments as well. Does he or she have well
thought out arguments, are they knee-jerk, or are do they reveal something else
about the person?

That's one of the reason most lurk - posting reveals something about the
poster. Even posting a single word reveals that the issue was worth 'exposing'
oneself rather than staying anonymous... ;)

When one posts an article on modulating LED brightness, I doubt it is to
'convince', but rather to inform. So it is with GW I would say. A lot of
information was offered in the thread, some of it directly GW related. ;)

If it's a topic I am emotionally attached to, and opinionated about as well,
then let the information fly! If you're really good, maybe your information is
good enough to alter my opinion - the result of really good discussion.
Otherwise, I enjoy seeing how future (or present) debate opponents might
present their side. Either way I benefit... And on a topic that, unlike the use
of pull-up resistors, doesn't have a firm conclusion yet, policies and
strategies (which affect real work) are set by the preponderance of evidence,
so the more postings the better - more information (either about the facts, or
about how the facts are presented).



Rich wrote:
> There is a saying that I recall about trying to convince people to change
> their position on matters they hold close.  It goes like this:  "A man
> convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  I have found it
> to be quite accurate.  Yes, Gerhard, you are right on, "the PIClist is one
> of the least suited places to convince people."
>
> {Original Message removed}

2008\04\18@122350 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Rich wrote:
> There is a saying that I recall about trying to convince people to change
> their position on matters they hold close.  It goes like this:  "A man
> convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  I have found it
> to be quite accurate.

That doesn't make sense. Nobody's *forcing* anyone to change their position
"against his will". And to reiterate, I changed my position on a number of
issues, when presented with convincing the arguments for the other side, and
considered the evidence. One of those issues is top-posting.

Moreover, I have witnessed other people change their mind. That's the way it
should be, in the free marketplace of ideas. The stubborn asses who insist
on maintaining their position in the face of overwhelming evidence are the
exception that proves the rule. :-)

> Yes, Gerhard, you are right on, "the PIClist is one
> of the least suited places to convince people."

It was Wouter, not Gerhard, who said that.

Vitaliy

2008\04\20@094121 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Rich wrote:

> There is a saying that I recall about trying to convince people to change
> their position on matters they hold close.  It goes like this:  "A man
> convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  I have found it
> to be quite accurate.  Yes, Gerhard, you are right on, "the PIClist is one
> of the least suited places to convince people."

Rich,

I just wanted to set this straight (not sure you already read Vitaliy's
response that also corrected this): it was Wouter who wrote what you
attributed to me, and my opinion is that while this may or may not be true,
it's immaterial because for me the objective is not convincing someone but
to gather good arguments and have my arguments poked.

FWIW, below is a short history of this subthread.

Gerhard

----------------------------------
[Wouter]
>>>> In my experience the PIClist is one of the least suited places to
>>>> convince people. So for all proponents and opponents of GW actions,
>>>> NuclearEnergy, Iraq war, etc: why post here at all? Most PIClisters
>>>> have a firm opinion on these matters, which your post won't change.
>>>> So why not take your writings elsewhere, [...]?

[Gerhard]
>>> Depends on what you want from a discussion. I don't want to convince
>>> people, I want to hear what good arguments people have who don't share
>>> my opinion. This is a good place for this.

[Vitaliy]
>> Agreed.
>>
>> And FWIW, discussions on this list have changed or strongly influenced
>> my opinions on various subjects. Wouter's suggestion that the PICList
>> consists of mostly closed-minded people is incorrect, IMHO.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...