Sweet zombie jesus, this is the stupid thread that's ever, for lack of a better term, graced this list, and I think I was even party to the predecessor.
I am eternally in your debt for bringing us this new low. - billn On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > On 6/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ clip ] > > > > > If you disagree, and think that autoresponders are ok, I'll make sure > > > > to set one up just for you ;) > > > > > > My argument is mostly social, in that we don't need, or want, the admins > > > taking punitive positions on anything when the users can do it > > > themselves. > > > Users can't remove others who have autoresponders from mailing list. > > But they can killfile the most standard error messages "out of office" > and sink people who are repeat offenders. But that's if they even > post. This means that the vast majority of users are unaffected. All > but a few. And some that haven't posted in years. How are they getting > these messages? > > > > To put it bluntly, along with that, don't you have anything better to > > > do? > > > This is the top thing on my todo list. :) > > > How unfortunate. You mischaracterize the original debate you weren't > present for, you infer that the SC is holding you back because of the > AUP, you received no consensus on any changes, Randy brought this > particular issue up at the meeting for about 5 seconds and consensus > was challenged in that there was barely anyone in the room _and_ > nobody has done any work to get anyone to participate, and you think > this is empowerment to act? You act on an issue that affects about 5 > people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the > list of off topic posting? > > This would be called a step backwards. > > -M< >
