Re: Linux Links Part I

From: Jeroen Geilman (not_at_rtpada.ln)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:46:53 +0200

Paul Lutus wrote:

> Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
>
>>begin Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> dedi ki:
>>
>>>Polerio Babao Jr.II wrote:
>>>
>>>Please post your question. If you do not have a question, create a Web
>>>page and link to it here. Do not just dump all your personal notes into
>>>the newsgroup.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
> This is not a matter for debate.

Says who?
USENET is a discussion forum, and debate is a valid subset of discussion.

Anything can be both discussed and debated on USENET.
Sample some of the 80000+ newsgroups if you think you once again know
better.

The OP did not, as a matter of fact, post anything you could sensibly
call "discussable", but the only addition needed to comply with your
"rules" would be to prefix his post with something like:
"What do y'all think about these links ?"

So simple, yet elegant.
Instead of indicating this you felt the need to lash out.

> Usenet has a certain role, and there are
> rules and behavioral standards in place. An example of this rule:
>
> http://www.ecn.org/estroja/tech/spam-l.htm
>
> Quote:
>
> "Limit your posting to 200 lines; larger postings will be automatically
> rejected. If you have a large posting, abstract it and provide a URL or
> autoresponder to it."

The OP was by no means over 200 lines in length.

>>I don't think of newsgroups as some question-and-answer
>>places.
>
> And you don't get to decide.

More than you, though.
He stated it as his opinion, while you once again feel the need to lay
down a law that neither exists nor appreciates your enforcement of it.

You consistently manage to confuse a statement of one's opinion with a
(possibly actionable) statement of fact which is falsifiable.

A statement of opinion is not falsifiable, nor is it at all debatable in
and of itself; it is an opinion.

Sad to see such sloppiness from someone who claims to be on top of logic.

> The appropriate way for the poster to have
> proceeded is to create a Web page and link to it here.

One way - one way.
I do agree that posting something the OP thinks is interesting may not
be of any interest to anybody else - but that is not the issue.

NOBODY who posts anything on USENET can know beforehand that what he or
she has to say will be of interest - to anybody.

> This newsgroup, and
> most newsgroups, are not mass-publishing media, they are discussion forums.

Wrong.
The very nature of USENET identifies it as a mass-publishing medium.
It's just very selective about what should be published.

>>Anyone can post some news, interesting sites, or anything relevant
>>here.
>
> Yes, as long as it meets Usenet rules. One of the rules is not to post
> anything excessive in length.

Which it was not.

>>As for posting a link instead of the content, I agree to some
>>extent. But he might not have a home page or handy site to gather the
>>contents on, and the links tend to get stale in time anyway.
>
> This is not an excuse for breaking the rules. If it were, people could
> justify borrowing your mate any time they felt left out by the grand sweep
> of genetic history.

Ah - obfuscated personal attacks again. You can be so predictable sometimes.

>>Also, in this
>>specific case, the content itself is a collection of links.
>
> Neither it, nor its two recent associated, very large posts, is appropriate
> for posting in a discussion forum.

Maybe, but that is not determined by the size in this case.

> Many Usenet servers automatically reject
> large posts, so a poster who expects to have his magnum opus propagated
> through this medium may well find himself quietly deleted without comment.
>
>>And lastly, he
>>seems to be doing this in good will,
>
> Spammers always insist that they are performing a public service, for
> example, to help those whose external plumbing doesn't have horse-like
> proportions. Most people disagree.

More slanted personal attacks.

>>trying to contribute some valuable
>>info (which *are* valuable, BTW). So I don't think he deserves a negative
>>response.
>
> He richly deserves a negative response for not finding out what the rules
> are.

You could have told him so, instead of just telling him off.

What service do you provide, exactly ?

>>I feel that I should thank him for his contribution, if
>>anything.
>
> What you feel isn't a matter of great concern.

You must be so lonely. 

-- 
J
Where does the *** go ?