list slowdown

Mark Millman · 18 Aug 2010, 23:22 · from 2010-August.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: markjmillman at gmail.com (Mark Millman)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:22:20 -0400
Subject: (urth) list slowdown
In-Reply-To: <4C6B7234.6030804 at io.com>
References: <AANLkTikQYLOeDqxEAeddbVTfrFWuRY6PNh9Eq-=FGE-J at mail.gmail.com>
	<00cdd7cd45ff0b4452ca0e73e959954b.squirrel at webmail.prismnet.com>
	<AANLkTimP9ONqVbvr-N9NrEPJJjrjib8EpD4q1MONyb3=@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C6B7234.6030804 at io.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikF5yCUh_4dWzC+1RHY2_ga4Qw7KDPZRtd2xPJ- at mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeff,

On Wednesday 18 August 2010, you wrote:

>> > Can you seriously
>> > say why it is more
>> > important for us to
>> > post less instead
>> > of you to be more
>> > selective? . . .
>>
>> The other commenters have
>> answered your questions
>> better than I could do.
>
> I asked about your opinion in particular.

And I indicated that others had expressed my reasoning, making it
superfluous for me to do so; and that my opinion is that their
statements are better than my own is likely to be.

> If you are so loathe to engage in the dis-
> cssion even when directly interrogated,

I'm interested in results, rather than discussion, on this point.  It
seems that many topics are discussed at length without progress--for
example, many hypotheses delivered here do not seem to get refined
even by extensive discussion--and I do not intend that this issue
should provide another example.  Besides which, it's off-topic to this
list.  This will be my last note on the subject; but I'm answering for
reasons of courtesy, because you have--as you indicate--asked me
directly.

> why should the discussion be tailored to
> the preferences of a non-participant?

Well, one non-participant who has asked for a change is the list
owner, and several people have seen fit to continue as they please
rather than as he's asked.  I'd therefore say that the discussion
hasn't been so tailored, despite the preference of a very relevant
non-participant.  This being the case, why should you listen to me?
But I certainly won't get the result I'd like to see if I don't ask.

>> > If it's not the
>> > overall vol-
>> > ume, would
>> > fewer, long-
>> > er posts
>> > suit you?
>>
>> That certainly would
>> help.
>>
>> > Would few-
>> > er, thicker
>> > threads be
>> > better?
>>
>> In my opinion, yes.

Given, that is, that I correctly understand your use of "thicker"
here.  I interpret it as implying a higher ratio of information to
verbiage.

> IS it that there are fewer choices to make,
> to read or delete unread fewer posts, to ig-
> nore or follow fewer threads?

All of the above, plus the likelihood that more thought devoted to
fewer posts will result in better--i.e., better-written,
better-reasoned, and better-supported--arguments.

>> > Equiring minds
>> > and Sturgeon's
>> > Lawyers want
>> > to know.
>>
>> I don't believe that Mr.
>> Danehy-Oakes addressed
>> any questions to me.
>
> He is but one of the thousands of Acipen-
> serii of whose existence you are unaware.

It's a pity I have no chrisos for you--not even a counterfeit.

> --
> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
> IEEE Student Chapter Blog at
> < http://ieeetamut.org >

Best,

Mark Millman

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