The Topic Police(tm)(sm)(C)(bs) was: Re: [TriLUG] RevolutionOS Trailer

[Mark Shuford]

On 18 May 2003 11:27:08 -0400
Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp at pobox.com> wrote:

> Did you even bother to read Tanner's email?  Have you checked our web
> site in the last month?  Are you even a member or someone interested in
> Linux, or are you just trying to make trouble?  I don't know why you
> think your invective is helping, but I sure don't appreciate it.  Please
> get a clue.
> 
> --Jeremy
> 

(Uhhh... this gets a bit long...) (And don't take anything at all too seriously -- in the end _nothing_ really matters.)

ZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEeeeeeezzzz....

Ahh, I got a bite. Now let me play you for a while before I reel you in and throw you back -- you're much too puny (and un-savory) to be a keeper. :> 

And I've got lots of clue. There are others here, I see, who need to be clued-in.


To answer your questions:
I read Tanner's eMail. I picked it as the most _almost_ off-topic thing I could find, very carefully!
I am a fully-paid member of TriLUG; are you?
I've been interested in (and using Linux) since 1993; and you?
And to reply to you comment:
You may not appreciate it, yet; perhaps you may still learn.

And let me add that I highly  appreciate Chris Rasch's thoughtfully informative reply. Much better form than you present.

Polemic (1a):

My point, as was picked up by Chris Hedemark (and I wasn't really whining, Chris) and Tom Boucher, is that ANYONE can appoint themselves as the Topic Police (tm)(sm)(C)(bs). As we see, it is not effective or conducive to pleasant conversation; nor, as I shall shortly endeavor to show, very necessary.

Each has his own ideas as to how broad topics are. Even though the movie is about Linux there may be those who do not see it as closely enough related to the list and deem it off topic (to be clear to those needing clarity -- I was not seriously suggesting that the post was off topic). This would not be too far a stretch since one, simply reading 90+ percent of the posting on this list, could assume that this was strictly a technical Q+A (Questions and Answers) forum. It is not my understanding that this is the case. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

When one appoints him/her-self as a Topic Policeman(tm)(sm)(C)(bs) one is, rather, a vigilante. His opinion may not reflect the general mood and desire of others on the list. Indeed, in the case I set up (purposefully) he may not even be CORRECT in his assessment.

A question in an eMail from Mike Johnson asks '...why is [the BBQ thread] continuing?' (Keeping in the realm of Q+A) here is my answer:

Having not read my eMail in about six weeks (illness and such) I was attempting to catch up on 600+ TriLUG postings. I ran across this thread and threw in my own quip ('Eastern or Western?) before I got far enough down to see how the thread developed. 

This appears to have engendered several responses from fellow BBQ enthusiasts (and I assume them to be, mostly, North Carolinians -- I will not go into my opinion of Yankees who come down here and then have no appreciation (or even tolerance of discussion about) our native delicacy). (Or perhaps Kansans or <shudder> Texans, with their penchant for beef brisket.)

[Seeing the repeated appearance of pizza at every TriLUG meeting (a completely boring food, as it has come to be made by Domino's and Papa John's) I can perhaps understand the fear brought to the minds (and stomachs) of some when BBQ pig is mentioned. But this reflects on the boredom (shall one say dullness?) of those wishing every word to be within their narrowly conceived conception of 'on topic'.]

This indicates to me, quite clearly, that there was indeed some general interest in the subject (the mutated subject, BBQ, not the original subject, off topic posting). If someone is going to talk about something are you  dead-set on always shouting them down just because you are not interested yourself? What happens when you bring up a subject that not many are interested in?

I would have thought that the discussions about off-topic topics which followed would have made its own point about the futility of topic-policing. The topic-policing went on for much longer than the topic that germinated it.

Let me repeat that which someone (sorry, I've deleted the post) has pointed out:
Off-Topic postings die out of their own starvation very quickly. This is self-evident and recursive; if someone else does not consider it a useful topic there will be no replies.

And indeed the 'BBQ' thread _had_ died out. Twice.

If all this is going to be is a Q+A forum it will be quite tedious! There are over 33 1/3 postings a day (average over the last 33 days) on this list. Of the 1,000 plus postings still currently in my Inbox there are some 24 which are 'off topic'; that is about BBQ grills and Windows or BBQ (the real thing) -- or more likely about the off-topic-ness of same. Hardly perceptible is it?

Theodore Sturgeon's definition of a dullard:
One who takes down the encyclopaedia, reads the article of his intent and immediately re-shelves the book.


So: Chill, dudes; go with the flow. The off-topic arguments are much worse than what they purport to prevent.

And they will surely drive _me_ away much quicker than the occasional off-topic thread or even the interminable Q+A format. (Though the latter is strong inducement.)

Oh, and I'm not bitter about the attempts to end any thread. I really could not care less one way or the other. If people don't want to discuss something that's fine with me. If they do, then that's fine, too; I may even join them. I'm just trying to put and end to the Topic-Police(tm)(sm)(C)(bs) by saying the cure is worse than the illness.

The only thing which would be worse than Topic-Police(tm)(sm)(C)(bs) would be strict adherence to narrow topics.

My last word on off-topic-ness.
-- 
Mark Shuford

Everything is interesting. Everything is relevant.
                                        --Me

Now I know what a statesman is; he's a dead politician. We need more statesmen.
					--Bob Edwards

Visit me at: http://www.krazeemark.com