 | | Re: A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant, presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A modest proposal —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a particularly relevant post. Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And since your proposal (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A modest proposal —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I'm pretty good at ignoring those, actually. YCLIU. (...) Define "reasonably well". How is 7-10%? That's my current track record (in a small enough moving average). I think ignoring 90-93% of irrelevance is a pretty good approximation of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A modest proposal —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Did you ever think that getting an answer from you was not the only aim? (...) It is my view that apart from the "what no answer" type posts you only answer the useless ones – i.e. the ones where you can score a cheap point. When I do make a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
