[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [OS:N:] Re: yes it's gone on long enough



On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 15:15, Chris Spencer wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 11:25, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Indeed.  As they say in bars at closing time,
> > "You don't have to go home, but you CAN'T STAY HERE!"
> > 
> > If Ed doesn't wise up, he needs to be banned from this list.
> 
> Now how would this help the world?  For all that it is Ed is well
> meaning with a differing opinion on how things should be done.

One would probably have to be slinging out profanity, libel, abuse, etc
to get banned. Or be a particular crafty and vile troll. If Ed is a
troll, and I'm not sure I would say that he is as he likely doesn't know
what it means, he's a garden variety troll. 

Folks from Red Hat on this list can strongly attest to the fact that I
will purposely start pointless flame wars on our internal lists. Why?
Because conversation has died, and they let folks present a side of
themselves you may not ever see. 

Is it effective? Shrug. I know our sysadmins don't always appreciate the
mail burden, but there are folks who have never said two words to one
another in deep interaction.

Feel free to filter or ignore anyone based on e-mail address. This won't
work for digest mode, but you can skim over things. We will likely not
be banning anyone. Though Ed might take this all to heart next time he
gets to flogging the stubborn mule.

There's a time to call it quits, we all have passed it (our flame wars
are usually on Friday, and *usually* last only one day.) 

If Ed wants the last word, give it to him, don't respond. The only way
flames die is to stop fanning them. I think we've got enough
neutralization of potential danger archived in this issue.

--jeremy





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]