{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5719", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5719, "subject": "list slowdown", "messages": 17, "voices": 10, "first": "2010-08-16T20:59:26+00:00", "last": "2010-08-19T01:31:28+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "markjmillman at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T20:59:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Folks,\n\nI had forty-two distinct threads from the Urth List comprising one\nhundred ninety-three notes when I looked at my e-mail account today.\nI last looked on Friday around 5:00 pm, so taking the intervening time\nas three days, that's an average of fourteen threads and sixty-four\nnotes per day.\n\nRanjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five\nmessages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him.\n\nI'd be distressed to have to give up my subscription to the list, but\nI foresee that eventuality if this volume continues.\n\nMark Millman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T21:25:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mark Millman wrote:\nRanjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five\nmessages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm trying. And this topic seems important enough to use my fourth (I\nbelieve) for the day.\n\nI agree with Mark. The list is getting a little out of hand, and a lot\nof the current discussion seems to be an elevated version of \"No it\nisn't!\" \"Yes it is!\"\n\n(The mailers that start new threads automatically don't help either,\nbut I'm not sure what can be done about that.)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Crossley", "address": "ishmael at drizzle.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T21:26:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Echoing and amplifying: Not that any one message or thread is to blame, but\nthis lurker completely agrees with what Mark's said. I'll be unsubscribing,\nat least for a while.\n\nJames Crossley" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/16/10 1:59 PM, \"Mark Millman\" wrote:\nFolks,\n\nI had forty-two distinct threads from the Urth List comprising one\nhundred ninety-three notes when I looked at my e-mail account today.\nI last looked on Friday around 5:00 pm, so taking the intervening time\nas three days, that's an average of fourteen threads and sixty-four\nnotes per day.\n\nRanjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five\nmessages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him.\n\nI'd be distressed to have to give up my subscription to the list, but\nI foresee that eventuality if this volume continues.\n\nMark Millman\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00cdd7cd45ff0b4452ca0e73e959954b.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T22:32:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Folks,\n\nI had forty-two distinct threads from the Urth List comprising one\nhundred ninety-three notes when I looked at my e-mail account today.\nI last looked on Friday around 5:00 pm, so taking the intervening time\nas three days, that's an average of fourteen threads and sixty-four\nnotes per day.\n\nRanjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five\nmessages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Can you seriously say why it is more important for us to post less instead\nof you to be more selective? I don't follow every thread here any more\nthan I read every line of the newspaper, or even every article in a\nmagazine devoted to a certain subject of my interest.\n\nIf it's not the overall volume, would fewer, longer posts suit you? Would\nfewer, thicker threads be better?\n\nEquiring minds and Sturgeon's Lawyers want to know." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C69BD60.1080002@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T22:36:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOn Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mark Millman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ranjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five\nmessages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm trying. And this topic seems important enough to use my fourth (I\nbelieve) for the day.\n\nI agree with Mark. The list is getting a little out of hand, and a lot\nof the current discussion seems to be an elevated version of \"No it\nisn't!\" \"Yes it is!\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I also think Mark is right. Not because I believe in some sort of \ncontrol, but because this isn't a chatroom. I guess the idea here is \nthat messages should present novel content, and that in a clear and \nconcise way. Just so the archives dont end up with 100000 iterations of \narguments that actually say next to nothing. That's tiresome and \ntime-consuming to wade through. If we keep to saying things once and not \nforcing others to repeat theirs, it might be a lot more productive. \nIncluding not debating endlessly what the text says without looking at \nthe text. If nothing else, amazon.com is our friend with its 'search \ninside' feature." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(The mailers that start new threads automatically don't help either,\nbut I'm not sure what can be done about that.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why can't people just 'reply' to 'urth at lists.urth.net' and be done with \nit? So far I've gotten the idea that the new thread thing is due to \nsomething they do for their own convenience. I may be wrong." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C69C698.5090604@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T23:15:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Mark,\n\nLabel me chastened.\n\nI hereby promise to play by the rules from now on. Although I'm doing it \n\"by rote\" without any real comprehension of the problems of those who \nwant it to slow down. Do people read all their mail on line? I thought \nIMAP systems like gmail had made that unnecessary. Do they feel a \ngenuine need to follow every thread from start to finish? Can't you just \ncreate a rule to put anything with \"urth\" in the in a separate folder?\n\nPerhaps people want to feel like they can walk away from their email for \nthree days without being left behind in the discussion. I suppose I get \nthat.\n\nI don't change titles at all anymore although it's beyond me why it \nmatters. If anything, I like a proliferation of titles because I can \nquickly decide if I want to read it.\n\nOh well, this is the last you'll hear from me today and I'll limit \nmyself to below quota tomorrow.\n\nu+16b9" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C69CB6E.5060406@hyraxes.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2010-08-16T23:36:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "<4C69C698.5090604@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do many things to help control the list and yet I find the volume \nnearly overwhelming.\n\nI hate to do the \"when I was a lad\" thing, but in the old days on the \nlist (before Long Sun, before Short Sun, etc.) most of the posts were in \nthe nature of short essays rather than the quick \nfew-lines-added-and-many-quoted that we are seeing lately. People would \nread them and comment thoughtfully with original content. No doubt my \nmemories are showing the sunsets more beautiful and the leaves more \ngreen, but interesting new ideas (like the connection between Greek myth \nand Silk's life) are lost in the shuffle at the current volume of \nmessages per day.\n\nAnd get off my lawn!\n\n-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nI hereby promise to play by the rules from now on. Although I'm doing \nit \"by rote\" without any real comprehension of the problems of those \nwho want it to slow down. *Do people read all their mail on line?* *I \nthought IMAP systems like gmail had made that unnecessary.* Do they \nfeel a genuine need to follow every thread from start to finish? \n*Can't you just create a rule to put anything with \"urth\" in the in a \nseparate folder?* " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Fred Kiesche", "address": "godelescherbach at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T00:49:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "<4C69CB6E.5060406@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not only do some of us read the list online (me), but some of us read\nit on dialup (also me!).\n\nAs for reading every posting of every thread--it seems when I skip,\nthen that is when I miss something illuminating and insightful and I\nkick myself for not having experienced it as well.\n\nI would vote for longer messages/thicker threads rather than an echo\nchamber of me toos or just adding something for the sake of adding\nsomething. I find myself approaching a need to delete all and start\nafresh or just unsubscribe from the list until Real Life (TM) allows\nme to catch up again." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/16/10, Dave Lebling wrote:\nI do many things to help control the list and yet I find the volume\nnearly overwhelming.\n\nI hate to do the \"when I was a lad\" thing, but in the old days on the\nlist (before Long Sun, before Short Sun, etc.) most of the posts were in\nthe nature of short essays rather than the quick\nfew-lines-added-and-many-quoted that we are seeing lately. People would\nread them and comment thoughtfully with original content. No doubt my\nmemories are showing the sunsets more beautiful and the leaves more\ngreen, but interesting new ideas (like the connection between Greek myth\nand Silk's life) are lost in the shuffle at the current volume of\nmessages per day.\n\nAnd get off my lawn!\n\n-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha\n\nJames Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I hereby promise to play by the rules from now on. Although I'm doing\nit \"by rote\" without any real comprehension of the problems of those\nwho want it to slow down. *Do people read all their mail on line?* *I\nthought IMAP systems like gmail had made that unnecessary.* Do they\nfeel a genuine need to follow every thread from start to finish?\n*Can't you just create a rule to put anything with \"urth\" in the in a\nseparate folder?*" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "F.P. Kiesche III \"Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book.\nAlways, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?\" (The Duke of Gloucester, on\nbeing presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman\nEmpire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children\n(http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/)." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T02:41:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While I am sympathetic to Mark Millman's sentiment, I am, in contrast to\nJames Wynn, not contrite or chastened. In my opinion this current flurry\nof activity is temporary and the result of some minor irritant which has \ninfected the board and prodded and provoked members into multiple contentious\ndiscussions. \n \nSoon the topics that have intense interest will decline in number and total postings \nwill die down to the handful of posts per day that recent times have seen. \nMoreover I think if we take a yearly average of posts per day for all members it\nwill compute to rather less than 5 per day even for the most prolific." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling- I hate to do the \"when I was a lad\" thing, but in the old days on the \nlist (before Long Sun, before Short Sun, etc.) most of the posts were in \nthe nature of short essays rather than the quick \nfew-lines-added-and-many-quoted that we are seeing lately. People would \nread them and comment thoughtfully with original content. No doubt my \nmemories are showing the sunsets more beautiful and the leaves more \ngreen, but interesting new ideas (like the connection between Greek myth \nand Silk's life) are lost in the shuffle at the current volume of \nmessages per day." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This sentiment I tend to agree with. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<5059101F-6B66-4E6F-9471-C3AB6193B663@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T03:15:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nWhile I am sympathetic to Mark Millman's sentiment, I am, in contrast to\nJames Wynn, not contrite or chastened. In my opinion this current flurry\nof activity is temporary and the result of some minor irritant which has \ninfected the board and prodded and provoked members into multiple contentious\ndiscussions. \n\nSoon the topics that have intense interest will decline in number and total postings \nwill die down to the handful of posts per day that recent times have seen. \nMoreover I think if we take a yearly average of posts per day for all members it\nwill compute to rather less than 5 per day even for the most prolific." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The censure of activity coupled with the censoring of debate is a bit unfortunate.\n\nI am partially to blame for the recent resurgence of activity, and for that I apologize. But the mere fact that I should apologize to the prudish few -- those who don't like their mailbox clogged and haven't learned how to set up Rules and Filters to quarantine the Urth messages, and so forth -- is in itself a let down.\n\nI personally really, REALLY like the discourse on this mailing list, but alas it is not MY mailing list, so if the powers that be don't want to encourage spirited, renewed debate, and still others long for a sunnier yesteryear when every post was a monumental essay on all things holy and Wolfean, then so be it.\n\nFive posts a day it is, sirs and madams.\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6F77A48B-29AE-488D-980D-27D9FEC9DAA0@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T03:39:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nMoreover I think if we take a yearly average of posts per day for all members it\nwill compute to rather less than 5 per day even for the most prolific." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't delete any of the Urth messages I receive, they are all in their separate mailbox stored locally on my computer. This gives me the ability to do some simple analytics. Here's what I've found.\n\nThere have been 2,363 messages posted over the past 63 days (since June 15, when I first started receiving them in message form).\n\nSince then, here are the top 10 posters. In parenthesis are their total posts followed by their posts-per-day (TP / PPD):\n\n01. Josh Geller (361 / 5.7)\n02. David Stockhoff (337 / 5.3)\n03. Jeff Wilson (250 / 3.9)\n04. Ryan Dunn (200 / 3.17)\n05. James Wynn (183 / 2.9)\n06. Lee Berman (175 / 2.77)\n07. Antonio Marques (153 / 2.4)\n08. John Watkins (115 / 1.8)\n09. Gerry Quinn (97 / 1.5)\n10. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes (81 / 1.3)\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Fred Kiesche", "address": "godelescherbach at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T10:33:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You know, you are right. My work is more important. So, adios." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/16/10, brunians at brunians.org wrote:\nf your recreational Reading is Interfering with Your Important Work, Sir,\nI do have a suggestion for You.\n\nEliminate One or the Other.\n\nOr eliminate something.\n\nI don't know what.\n\nWith me it was my left testicle.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not only do some of us read the list online (me), but some of us read\nit on dialup (also me!).\n\nAs for reading every posting of every thread--it seems when I skip,\nthen that is when I miss something illuminating and insightful and I\nkick myself for not having experienced it as well.\n\nI would vote for longer messages/thicker threads rather than an echo\nchamber of me toos or just adding something for the sake of adding\nsomething. I find myself approaching a need to delete all and start\nafresh or just unsubscribe from the list until Real Life (TM) allows\nme to catch up again.\n\nOn 8/16/10, Dave Lebling wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I do many things to help control the list and yet I find the volume\nnearly overwhelming.\n\nI hate to do the \"when I was a lad\" thing, but in the old days on the\nlist (before Long Sun, before Short Sun, etc.) most of the posts were in\nthe nature of short essays rather than the quick\nfew-lines-added-and-many-quoted that we are seeing lately. People would\nread them and comment thoughtfully with original content. No doubt my\nmemories are showing the sunsets more beautiful and the leaves more\ngreen, but interesting new ideas (like the connection between Greek myth\nand Silk's life) are lost in the shuffle at the current volume of\nmessages per day.\n\nAnd get off my lawn!\n\n-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha\n\nJames Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I hereby promise to play by the rules from now on. Although I'm doing\nit \"by rote\" without any real comprehension of the problems of those\nwho want it to slow down. *Do people read all their mail on line?* *I\nthought IMAP systems like gmail had made that unnecessary.* Do they\nfeel a genuine need to follow every thread from start to finish?\n*Can't you just create a rule to put anything with \"urth\" in the in a\nseparate folder?*" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "--\nF.P. Kiesche III \"Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book.\nAlways, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?\" (The Duke of Gloucester, on\nbeing presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman\nEmpire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children\n(http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/).\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T11:11:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ryan Dunn- here are the top 10 posters. In parenthesis are their total posts \nfollowed by their posts-per-day (TP / PPD):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "01. Josh Geller (361 / 5.7)\n02. David Stockhoff (337 / 5.3)\n03. Jeff Wilson (250 / 3.9)\n04. Ryan Dunn (200 / 3.17)\n05. James Wynn (183 / 2.9)\n06. Lee Berman (175 / 2.77)\n07. Antonio Marques (153 / 2.4)\n08. John Watkins (115 / 1.8)\n09. Gerry Quinn (97 / 1.5)\n10. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes (81 / 1.3)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Awesome work Ryan. You da man! \n \nI think the average would be notably less for some if \ncertain off-topic arguments were not factored in. Ranjit's\nlimit of 5/day would seem to be a presciently wise and\nappropriate limit to have set on average. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "markjmillman at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-17T19:52:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "<00cdd7cd45ff0b4452ca0e73e959954b.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Mr. (my apologies if this should be Dr.) Wilson," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Monday 16 August 2010, you wrote:\nCan you seriously say why it is more\nimportant for us to post less instead\nof you to be more selective? I don't\nfollow every thread here any more\nthan I read every line of the newspa-\nper, or even every article in a maga-\nzine devoted to a certain subject of\nmy interest." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The other commenters have answered your questions better than I could do.\n\nAlso, the list owner has asked for less volume, and I think it right\nto accede to his wishes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it's not the overall volume, would few-\ner, longer posts suit you?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That certainly would help." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would fewer, thicker threads be better?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In my opinion, yes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Equiring minds and Sturgeon's Law-\nyers want to know." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't believe that Mr. Danehy-Oakes addressed any questions to me.\n\nMark Millman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C6B7234.6030804@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-08-18T05:40:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/17/2010 2:52 PM, Mark Millman wrote:\nDear Mr. (my apologies if this should be Dr.) Wilson," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff is fine." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Monday 16 August 2010, you wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Can you seriously say why it is more\nimportant for us to post less instead\nof you to be more selective? I don't\nfollow every thread here any more\nthan I read every line of the newspa-\nper, or even every article in a maga-\nzine devoted to a certain subject of\nmy interest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The other commenters have answered your questions better than I could do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I asked about your opinion in particular. If you are so loathe to engage \nin the discssion even when directly interrogated, why should the \ndiscussion be tailored to the preferences of a non-participant?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If it's not the overall volume, would few-\ner, longer posts suit you?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That certainly would help." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Would fewer, thicker threads be better?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In my opinion, yes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "IS it that there are fewer choices to make, to read or delete unread \nfewer posts, to ignore or follow fewer threads?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Equiring minds and Sturgeon's Law-\nyers want to know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't believe that Mr. Danehy-Oakes addressed any questions to me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He is but one of the thousands of Acipenserii of whose existence you are \nunaware." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nIEEE Student Chapter Blog at\n< http://ieeetamut.org >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "markjmillman at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-18T23:22:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "<4C6B7234.6030804@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Jeff," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Wednesday 18 August 2010, you wrote:\nCan you seriously\nsay why it is more\nimportant for us to\npost less instead\nof you to be more\nselective? . . ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The other commenters have\nanswered your questions\nbetter than I could do." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I asked about your opinion in particular." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And I indicated that others had expressed my reasoning, making it\nsuperfluous for me to do so; and that my opinion is that their\nstatements are better than my own is likely to be." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you are so loathe to engage in the dis-\ncssion even when directly interrogated," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm interested in results, rather than discussion, on this point. It\nseems that many topics are discussed at length without progress--for\nexample, many hypotheses delivered here do not seem to get refined\neven by extensive discussion--and I do not intend that this issue\nshould provide another example. Besides which, it's off-topic to this\nlist. This will be my last note on the subject; but I'm answering for\nreasons of courtesy, because you have--as you indicate--asked me\ndirectly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "why should the discussion be tailored to\nthe preferences of a non-participant?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, one non-participant who has asked for a change is the list\nowner, and several people have seen fit to continue as they please\nrather than as he's asked. I'd therefore say that the discussion\nhasn't been so tailored, despite the preference of a very relevant\nnon-participant. This being the case, why should you listen to me?\nBut I certainly won't get the result I'd like to see if I don't ask." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "If it's not the\noverall vol-\nume, would\nfewer, long-\ner posts\nsuit you?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That certainly would\nhelp." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Would few-\ner, thicker\nthreads be\nbetter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In my opinion, yes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Given, that is, that I correctly understand your use of \"thicker\"\nhere. I interpret it as implying a higher ratio of information to\nverbiage." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "IS it that there are fewer choices to make,\nto read or delete unread fewer posts, to ig-\nnore or follow fewer threads?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All of the above, plus the likelihood that more thought devoted to\nfewer posts will result in better--i.e., better-written,\nbetter-reasoned, and better-supported--arguments." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Equiring minds\nand Sturgeon's\nLawyers want\nto know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't believe that Mr.\nDanehy-Oakes addressed\nany questions to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He is but one of the thousands of Acipen-\nserii of whose existence you are unaware." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a pity I have no chrisos for you--not even a counterfeit." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\nJeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nIEEE Student Chapter Blog at\n< http://ieeetamut.org >" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Best,\n\nMark Millman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-19T01:31:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) list slowdown", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 19 August 2010 00:22, Mark Millman wrote:\nI'm interested in results, rather than discussion, on this point. It\nseems that many topics are discussed at length without progress--for\nexample, many hypotheses delivered here do not seem to get refined\neven by extensive discussion--and I do not intend that this issue\nshould provide another example." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this nails it in the head. Imo some of the participants here have\nlittle regard for the subject matter of the list.\n\nI'd especially like it if people here learned to distinguish two quite\ndifferent situations:\n\n- Theory A BEGS question X, and someone points out that the answer to X is\nlikely to invalidate A.\nFine. Useful. May shoot down A or make it better if an alternate explanation\nis found.\n\n- Theory B PROVIDES answer Z to question Y, and someone says that the answer\ncould be W instead.\nWrong. Useless. Doesn't shoot down B because it doesn't invalidate Z and B\ndoesn't depend on Y anyway. Serves no purpose at all than idle chatter\nbecause of course there could always be a ton of answers to Y, that's not\nwhat's under discussion.\n\nWith such a complex prime matter, discussions can go on forever and never\nadvance an inch. I personally LOATHE discussion for the sake of discussion,\nspecially because it almost always means people don't take the trouble of\nunderstanding what it's all about, only caring to have a seemingly clever\nword to say. But hey, that's me." } ] } ] }