Conference tallis::celt

Great idea. I second that motion.
-Jay

    What does Mark think about it?

    I prefer it the way it is. For every new topic that Mark posts there
    are about 20 replies saying the same things:
    
    	- Personal Attacks
    	- "You don't know what you're talking about"
    	- "Answer the question"
    	- "Armchair Expert"
    	- "What about Warrington"
    	  etc.
    
    I like to read most of the articles, it's the replies that bore me. If
    we leave it the way it is I can Next-Unseen to the next new topic
    without bothering with the petty bickering that goes on in the replies.
    If we merge all of these notes into one it won't stop the replies
    (unless you wish to stop debate) so I'll have to scan thru all the
    replies until I come to one worth reading. This may not sound like a
    big deal to you but the network link between Australia & the U.S. is
    not real fast and I usually note from home over a 2400 baud modem and
    only about once a week. There is a lot of crap posted in here over a
    seven day period which I just don't have the time to read.
    
    Leave things as they are.
    
    Tony.
    

    
    That makes sense. You can get your fill of republican propaganda
    quicker that way. The point remains however, that Aussie net links or
    not, most notes files don't exist for someone to start new notes for
    topics that aren't new. 
    

    >That makes sense. You can get your fill of republican propaganda
    I can get my fill of British propaganda from the newspapers and TV. I'm 
    only looking for alternative sources so that I can draw my own conclusions.
    
    >not, most notes files don't exist for someone to start new notes for
    >topics that aren't new. 
    Who is to say what constitutes a 'new' topic. Should Northern Ireland
    be a topic? Should bomb explosions be a topic? Should Army/RUC raids on
    peoples' houses be a topic? 
    
    What do you propose as the list of topics?
    
    Tony.
    

    What about two topics, then? One for the extracts and another for the
    replies to the extracts? Then we can all ignore the notes that we don't
    want to read.

A DIR x.* would show which notes are extracts and which are replies as long as
the titles are sensible. Already most extracts have titles, replies often do
not.

A few carefully chosen keywords would point people to the flavour of note they
prefer. This would enable them to confirm their prejudices whilst avoiding the
confusion of reading about reality.

Dave

    Tony,
    
    Just do a DIR/Author="*Holohan*".  That's obviously all you are
    interested in.
    
    I prefer the two-note idea.  One for MH's postings from the usenet and
    one for the replies.
    
    
    
    Mark

    Yes, Let's give MH his own note, which he can set nowrite, and any
    discussion can go on in specific and relevant notes.
    
    The first time I ever entered this conference was about a year ago, to
    extract all existing holiday-type information, and to solicit advice
    for myself for a forthcoming (and sadly cancelled) holiday. At the time,
    I remember how difficult it was, even with the aid of PAN, to sort the
    wheat from the chaff. It is now considerably more difficult...
    
    Laurie.

    
    AYE!  one note for posting articles.  A second topic for only the batched
    reply canned bickering.
    
    NEXT UNSEEN reduction would be nice.
    
    Gary

re<<< Note 1361.8 by AYOV20::MRENNISON >>>
    
>    Just do a DIR/Author="*Holohan*".  That's obviously all you are
>    interested in.
    
    No, you're wrong. I'm interested in what Mark writes and I'm also
    interested in what other people have to say about the subjects he
    brings up. What I don't like is when there is no meaningful discussion
    about those topics. As I said earlier, most of the replies to his notes
    are in the form of name calling, shouts of "Propaganda" and "What about
    occurance X". They don't add anything.
    
    Tony.

I would vote for keeping things the way they are. The author of .0 is often
as much to blame for the exchanges getting out of hand. If MH posts something
and people don't respond things will quieten down a bit. 

There seems to be a set piece battle:

1. MH Cross-posts a Note from the Internet
2. The usual trio condemn it as propaganda
3. MH over-reacts to comments.
4. Goto 2

Whether the notes are in their own topic or just as replies "next unseen"
works just as well.

Mark

    
    I won't quarrel with the first sentence of that. Anyone who reacts to
    Holohan's new note mania shares the blame for the repetitive fights
    that often come out of them, 'tis true. However, what you miss is the
    obvious point. I guess I'll have to repeat it again for your benefit.
    Starting new notes on the slightest whim is disruptive to those
    (including myself often as not these days) who are _trying_ to ignore
    every provocation. Anyway, it's clear no one sees any reason to change 
    the current policy, no one who can do anything about it that is.
    
    You're saying it's just fine to let someone rathole a conference with
    new basenotes that have no reason to be new basenotes. I wonder how you
    would see it if these new basenotes contained UDA propaganda. 
    

   For example, the way it is now, hitting next unseen gets you often
   as not (asuming you log in every day or every other day) :-

   existing note  - argument going on about NI   
   new note       - "British use torture in NI"      (o replies)  
   new note       - "Amnesty: British use collusion" (o replies) 
   existing note  - argument going on about NI    
   existing note  -  (brave attempt to talk about something else) 
   existing note  - argument going on about NI    

   I say it would be better to see this:-

   existing note  - argument going on about NI    
   existing note  - argument going on about NI    
   existing note  -  (brave attempt to talk about something else) 
   existing note  - argument going on about NI    

  ..   the 2 new notes having gone into the relevant bit buckets

  In time you might even see this:-

   existing note  - argument going on about NI    
   existing note  -  (brave attempt to talk about something else) 
   existing note  -  (brave attempt to talk about something else) 
   new note       -  IRA agree to ceasefire

   Who knows.. anyway, everyone have a good weekend. I'm off to Logan.