Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

You would be wrong here William,

The WG-Review had no posting limits and by far was the most productive, by time
and output, of any TF or WG ever.  There was plenty of flaming and ranting and
raving that only served to peak interest and did not hurt productivity.  We were
even attacked regularly by the NC.  Unless one is in complete advocacy to rid the
GA of any rules one should not use the WG-Review as an example.

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I have been given to
> understand that proxy posting was accepted as standard policy in
> WG-Review, which also had a 5/day rule, in which I am told you
> participated.  If that is true, I could only say that your position as
> stated here is disingenuous at best.
>
> Those more familiar than me with that operation might fill us all in
> here -- if such a "proxy rule" was not used there, then obviously
> I withdraw my remarks.
>
> So explain how your stated preference that the posting limits not
> be circumvented is consistent with your acceptance of a process
> wherein a person gets the post in anyway by having someone
> else do the posting?  Does that not circumvent the purpose of
> the posting limit?  Does that not elevate form over substance?
> Is that an honest way to conduct business?
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:08:26PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > > > Sorry.  First of all, none of the above are real problems -- they are
> > > > all just whining about inconveniences.  Second, list software wouldn't
> > > > handle proxies, anyway.  If you want to send a message to a person, and
> > > > have them forward it for you, that works under any scenario.
> > >
> > > Case in point: I would almost use up my limit for the day simply if I
> > > responded to Patrick Corliss and no one else.
> >
> > Why on earth do you think that you would have to respond to every email by
> > Patrick Corliss, or anyone else?
> >
> > > So I gather you can be put down as one who would prefer the post
> > > limit rules to be circumvented by artifice, rather than by the
> > > establishment of some recognized procedure that would allow
> > > a full response by someone being deluged.  So be it.
> >
> > No.  I would rather that the posting limits not be circumvented.
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html