[plug] unsubscibe (newbie's perspective)

[The Thought Assassin]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Mike wrote:
> At 11:12 AM 26/3/2001 +0800, Greg Mildenhall rote:
> >On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Mike wrote:
> >> Are people forgetting something here ?
> >> a.	Computers can be programmed to perform various tasks,
> >> 	easy to program it to handle unsub requests from the list
> >> 	members as well as via an admin list. Simple logic could
> >> 	handle the very requests (and several exceptions) that
> >> 	have recently occured.
> >ROFL. Your faith in computers is touching, but unrealistic. :(
> I have no particular faith in a piece of hardware, I do have faith
> in the ability of enthusiastic individuals and their tools.

You weren't an AI researcher in the 50s, were you?
You seem to think that natural language parsing is a simple problem.

> >> b.	Wouldn't it be a nice demonstration of the powers of linux
> >The trick is not to subscribe fools, or to subscribe then educate them.
> Again you make an assumption a 'fool' is incapable of becoming an
> expert and a helpful member of a list

Sorry, when I said "subscribe and then educate them", I actually meant "of
course you can't educate them, they are fools". Thanks for pointing out
this atrocious typo of mine.

> >> c.	Linux is slowly getting some recognition and we need all the
> >> 	newbies we can get and then some more,
> >Not sure why you would say this. I certainly don't need newbies. :)
> You are only one member of this list, are you suggesting this list
> does not need any new members - if so why ?

I'm extrapolating. I don't need newbies. I don't know why anyone else here
would need newbies. Ergo, I'm not sure why the list would need newbies.
Why do you need newbies?

> I am suggesting a way to reduce noise - instead of criticism why not
> think about improving it ?

Because it is fundamentally flawed.

> >> 	IMNSHO: REstricting subscriptions is like restricting education
> >> 	(which should be totally free - and I'm a capitalist).
> >So you are not in favour of excluding children from a school when their
> >behaviour prevents the effective education of other children?
> I a child is bad behavedm I would be in favour of them getting the
> very same education as other children, under the advisement of
> behavioural psychologists <...> it would be appropriate to limit their
> negative effects on other children <...>

So perhaps you would like read-only access for such people? You'll be glad
we have a web-accessible archive, then. ;)

> >and it is equally amazing that people who don't have programming
> >experience think that programmers should be able to come up with software
> >solutions to social problems.
> This is not a social problem - we are discussin reducing list noise
> for issues such as unsub requests.

I don't understand how the things people within our society choose to send
to the list can be anything but a social problem.

> >While on the subject, a programmer understands the merits of out-of-band
> >control signalling, but non-programmers seem to arrogantly assume that
> >because they don't understand the merit, its not real.
>
> In which context are you referring to 'out of band...', we are not
> discussing PID algorithms are embedded systems and in any case please
> describe how that is relevant to the issue of unsub noise mails ?

I guess you know what OOB is, so you'll understand why having a seperate
address for list admin instructions is an idea that should be preserved.

> >> I could do it in assembler with a bleedin Z80, it ain't that hard
> >> - is it ?
> >Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.
> Oh come on !
> Back in 84 I wrote <...>

It's not a question of hardware.

> To read a subject and make decisions for a small number of emails is not
> hard,

Not for a human being, no. Well nigh impossible for a computer.

-Greg Mildenhall