On 04/12/2018 09:34, Dirk Laurie wrote:
IMO, the problem is not that many (most?, all?) of us had been part of any of those group /sometimes/ and/or /briefly/. I dare say that even some posts falling into group #3 may sometimes be useful food for thought. Even if they generate long-winded threads. The problem are the ones who consistently, insistently and almost exclusively fall into group #3 for (almost) every message they post! These are the kind of persons that (e.g.), when asked whether they want sugar in their coffee, start a rant about how bad is eating sugar, go on for half an hour, then get the sugar and talk for /another half an hour/ on how bad coffee tastes without sugar (and maybe criticize you because you asked for tea instead)! O_OOp Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 09:55 het Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> geskryf:It was thus said that the Great Gé Weijers once stated:There are actually three clusters: 1. Those who use Lua as it is. 2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be. 3. Those who argue for argument's sake. No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages and 500 words/day?) This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their message will bounce...Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright. Group 2 isn't *that* bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.
This makes the list S/N (signal to noise) ratio much worse.