Re: [OT] Off-topic posts

[Roy Lanek <lanek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> You can never avoid OT posts, and I wouldn't say they have no value in
> general. I prefer some (few) of these discussions happening off-topic than
> not happening at all.

Good to see that you have begun to understand that, though one can't of course
pretend that it must happen on command or within ... *topological* limits.

Because ...

> I bet it's easier to convince people to use a [OT] tag than to convince 
> them not to post OT-mails at all, but prove me wrong.

Wrong. What may [OT] for person A, may not be so for person B. (And vice
versa: B's [OT] is [O'T] for A .... where [O'T] is: On-Topic; and [OT] or
[O'T] are not connected to: selling stuff X, injecting advertising, and
similar.)

/Roy Lanek

PS

[AC] tags (for auto-censure) belong to the same *family* of [OT] tags.
With time they become [psychoanalysis] *interiorized*, 2nd *nature* so to
speak--which is very bad--and goes even against Tor's goals.

This tagging idea remembers me newspeak very much.
-- 
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS   dimana tak da lang, aku lah lang, kata
SSSSS . s l a c k w a r e  SSSSSS   belalang--where there are no eagles, I am
SSSSS +------------ linux  SSSSSS   the one, said the grasshopper [where's no
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS   top dogs, underdogs will be seen as one]