On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:49:57 +0100, tjb wrote:
> Sean Inglis <ingliss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Please, for the love of $DEITY, stop. You have made this group unusable.
>>
>> Or, for the love of $DEITY, continue to post. You have steered this
>> group on topic from a state of useless decay, and continue to
>> effectively advocate Linux.
>
> No. He has turned a discussion group into Roy's News Blog.
>
Nonsense, anyone is free to post here. Roy is certainly prolific, but if
you dislike Roy's posts, filter them out. He has gone to trouble to ensure
that doing this is a trivial matter for anyone truly interested in doing
so.
>>> I don't want to have to killfile all of your news posts, because I want to
>>> read *some* of them. The problem is simply that you post too many -- far,
>>> far too many -- to the extent that the group is flooded.
>>
>> There is no way to know which you find useful in advance, and no reason
>> to cater to your particular tastes.
>
> I'm not suggesting that there is. Nor am I suggesting that he post to suit
> me. What I *am* suggesting is that he floods the group.
>
Your use of the word flood appears pejorative. This group has relatively
low posting activity of any kind compared to many others. The posts Roy
makes are unique (as in they are not continuous repetition of the
same news articles/adverts), relevant and entirely in line with the group
title.
This group is scarcely "flooded" with messages full stop. Your complaint
seems to centre around the ratio of Roy's posts to the total (modest)
number of posts. It takes about 30 seconds to scan the headers of a full
day's worth and decide which you want to read. If you find this too
onerous, sort by poster and scan Roy's separately. There are a number of
simple solutions to your "problem".
>>> Further, no-one should have to killfile your news posts just to make the
>>> group usable. Unfortunately, this *is* the situation now.
>>
>> It may be perceived that way by you. Not by me or others.
>>
>>>
>>> Now, some have defended Roy on the grounds that the posts flood out all the
>>> FUD and trolling and such. Well, I can understand this to a point, but
>>> then if you really don't want to see all that, then why even visit this
>>> group? And I think that in this respect the flooding hinders more than it
>>> helps -- if the group is getting flooded, then when someone searches Google
>>> Groups and encounters FUD, they won't see any refutation, because the FUD
>>> is a needle in a haystack to regular readers right now (obviously I'm
>>> exaggerating, but simply to make a point).
>>
>> "the FUD is a needle in a haystack". Excellent.
>
> No. I did not say that. I said that when his posts drown out the FUD
> threads, the FUD threads are less likely to be refuted, thereby casting
> doubt on the argument made by some in defence of Roy that 'the drowning out
> of the FUD threads is beneficial'.
>
Ah yes, I appreciate the distinction, my error. But I still don't agree
with your reasoning. This is *not* a high volume newsgroup. People are
as free to refute as they ever were.
>> Your logic in this respect is faulty in the extreme. If you want to
>> browse through instance after instance of juvenile fan-boi pissing
>> contests, this group is generally of no use to you now.
>
> So you'd rather see Roy's Blog? Really?
>
Neither stated nor implied.
> By the way, all those people who'd read c.o.l.a before Roy came along (the
> majority of today's regulars) -- should they simply have abandoned the
> group as well?
No one suggests that they should, and you have no evidence that they have.
Your question is pointless and irrelevant.
In any case I see this argument (and variations) used concerning Newsgroups
quite a bit, and it's a flawed and baseless every time it's repeated. The
people who post are an unknown fraction of the people who lurk/read. You
have no access to the numbers constituting the audience for c.o.l.a. Use
of words like "all", "majority" and "regulars" imply a level of
membership, precedence and organisation that simply doesn't exist in these
forums.
>
>>> Please, please post significantly fewer news posts.
>>
>> No, please continue. These are small text based on-topic posts with
>> appropriate links to further detail.
>
> The size of the bodies is not a problem. It's the number of the headers.
This is a low volume newsgroup. The number of headers is not a problem to
any half decent newsreader/user.
|
|
