On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 02:32:10AM -0400, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
greg said:
We've tried something like this with gutvol-p, to shunt some of the implementation talk away from gutvol-d. I still think this is a good idea, but somehow conversations often end up back on gutvol-d. Possibly because it's a bigger soapbox, with a larger subscribership.
i originally communicated only on gutvol-p. when i was shouted down there, i moved here, because i hoped people would be more civil in a bigger room, with more onlookers present...
and for a long time, that was indeed the case.
eventually my adversaries became emboldened here as well, and resumed all the nasty tactics...
i can play it any way you want. i prefer being on-topic, because i've got a _lot_ of things to say. but if others prefer to pick a fight with me, a fight is what they'll get.
meanwhile, i will keep posting examples, and as the weight of the evidence builds, i expect the flak to be more heated. so pay very close attention to who is doing the misdirection...
-bowerbird
Well, then, FWIW I think that most discussions about formatting, conversion and other "processes" are better suited for gutvol-p. The gutvol-d list is intended (at least in the brief charter at http://lists.pglaf.org) to be more oriented towards discussion about & among volunteers. Analysis, debate or discussion about the details of production seem closer to what gutvol-p was for. As we've noticed, there are a lot of different ideals (and different idealists) about the best way to have an email discussion. No matter which list these types of threads end up on, there will be missteps and unhappiness. These -d threads I've been reading today (Thursday), while yielding occasional entertainment, are not the type of thing I like to see on *any* list. -- Greg