Re: periodicity

["Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:

> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote:

>> Well, perhaps the criteria have changed; with around a hundred new
>> messages since I logged in yesterday, I'd guess a six or ten way split
>> would be in order.

> I think this would be a bad idea. A hundred new messages
> a day is perfectly manageable if you have a decent news
> reader that tracks threads. Mostly the subjects of threads
> are clear enough, I find I only look at about one third
> of all the threads. A thread like "future of Ada" has lots
> of posts, but if you are not interested in advocacy posts
> (I am not), you just skip the whole thread. THat's near
> enough equivalent to having a separate advocacy subgroup.

Ah, yes, the old "I've got great technology, so the devil take the
hindmost" argument.

Of course, if one were trying to evangelize some issue near and dear to
one, say, the wide dissemination of a programming language, to someplace
where the technology isn't the most modern, say, the third world, then a
willingness to believe that the world is not restricted to just what you
see on your desktop might be a wiser  approach.

But then you and I have been around this barn many, many times, Robert.

You aren't learning very fast, and I'm not changing my mind at all, so
you and I discussing your egocentric universe, in public or in private,
is a waste of time for all concerned.

Let's leave this discussion, if any, to others.

xanthian.




-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG