[PLUG-TALK] Scot Craighead's mailer
Miller, Jeremy
JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Fri Jun 21 18:50:31 UTC 2002
> Jeremy> But it still isn't absolute, especially since you say he is on
> Jeremy> vacation. He might not be spending it at home, and the
> Jeremy> connection he has access to might not be his own. [...]
>
> That is a possibility, and might explain it.
>
> I am also slightly bewildered how a member of a Unix/GNU/Linux
> enthusiast group doesn't have (and wouldn't demand) access to a box of
> such composition that would allow him to routinely use a non-suckie
> email client. Not impossible, just seems improbable somehow.
That's all I was aiming for, is that it isn't impossible. Even for a person
of this type.
> Jeremy> The root of the key word you use is "presume". Not bad in and
> Jeremy> of itself, but not the best grounds for being somewhat rude.
>
> Posting private email to a public mailing list is _also_ somewhat
> rude.
No question of that. I'm just of a mind that two rudes don't equal one
nice. :)
(Or even three, if you count mine. Sorry.)
> When you do that, intentionally or unintentionally, or through
> negligence (i.e., failing to take steps to provide yourself a
> non-suckie email client), it seems to me that you risk a certain
> measure of "abuse".
Well, OK.
I've been purposely keeping my threshold for "abuse" low, in order to try to
make a point. I just wanted to remain consistent while it was there.
> Sometimes those steps cost money, which is why I
> made the reference to his employer's compensation.
> For me, those steps include having an account on a machine I can
> always secure shell to and just arrange to read some or all of my mail
> there.
Mmkay.
> I felt justified in "abusing" Scot for his error as a way of providing
> negative feedback (i.e., "that action caused pain ... don't do that
> again").
LOL! Somehow I don't think that'll work over email, but it's fun to think
if it did. :P
It just happened to coincide with me being in a "hey you, be nice to
everyone while you debate" mode. Which didn't help me out much. :)
> It was a kind of operant conditioning, that would help guide
> the overall system to converge on "optimal behavior".
Sssssshhhhh! You're onto me! (From a slightly different angle.) Don't
tell anyone, OK?
> Reflecting now,
> I have not convinced myself whether or not this kind of tit-for-tat is
> always such a good idea, even given its useful features.
As I am trying to convince everyone that it isn't. :)
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list