Subject:
|
Re: A modest proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:17:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
978 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone
> > > else does too...
> >
> > Pencil out the "relevant or not" and change "ANY" to "any irrelevant", and
> > it's a done deal. From my perspective. But just because you abused your
> > privalages doesn't mean we should all suffer for it. The only reason I don't
> > think everyone should be prevented from replying to ANYTHING is because we
> > aren't repeat offenders. I've had 2 o-t-debate dialogues with Scott in as
> > many years, present situation included. You seem to have one every month or
> > two. I think you need the discipline more than us.
>
> Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant,
> presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error.
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 seems not to include Scott ANYWAY, why does it matter
what Scott thinks of his own posts? Unless you meant to say in your proposal
that Scott be part of the 'everyone else' and must not reply to his own
posts or else the deal's off.
No, I think the pressure should be on you. You're the biggest offender of
replying to Scott's useless messages. The rest of us seem to do reasonably
well. But maybe that's what you meant? You don't trust your own judgement of
what's a relevant debate point? You're one of the only ones with the
problem. All the more reason to force you and only you not to reply to
Scott. If we were all having problems with it, maybe you'd have a point.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) 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)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
