Is it time to enforce the five post rule?

James Wynn · 09 Jul 2010, 21:38 · from 2010-July.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:38:01 -0500
Subject: (urth) Is it time to enforce the five post rule?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOtVUpOrHLvgzOr7gK7_UKAa2OvXz-pFI-NTDn at mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikqa3XDgNEhJtJyJXvlX4wNky5QoNIbVh3Deh3D at mail.gmail.com>	<4C37933C.2090408 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinOtVUpOrHLvgzOr7gK7_UKAa2OvXz-pFI-NTDn at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C3796B9.8020603 at gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, James Wynn<crushtv at gmail.com>  wrote:

> The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. ~
> Babylon 5
>    

On 7/9/2010 4:29 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> If you're going to cite Koshisms ...
>
> "You have forgotten something."
>    

I actually got the insinuation. Subtle. Nice! "This ain't a democracy." 
But is today really the moment to call the cops? Perhaps a couple days 
ago, yeah. But today? On the other hand, perhaps the best time to firmly 
establish the rule is when the need least requires it. That is, if the 
Decider still thinks it is a good rule.

u+16b9

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net