I do not know the persons in a recent flamewar, one of whom called the other an 'asshole' and the other, who apparently because of extreme vituperativeness in another flamewar has been blocked from the list.
So, purely because of the use of the expletive, I also vote in favour of expelling the member who used it from the linuxers list.
No matter who you are, no matter how powerful you are in the little Indian FOSS frogpond, you cannot get away with something like this
or,
can you?
Guess that depends on the forum.
And even usually dormant members do no like to get cusswords in their mailbox.
If others too believe in the one person one vote principle, they should vote in this matter. If expletives are allowed today, tomorrow the atmosphere of the list could end up poisoned.
Suhit Kelkar.
Sachin Gopalakrishnan wrote:
So, purely because of the use of the expletive, I also vote in favour of expelling the member who used it from the linuxers list.
find more reasons to ban or expel and you won't have a list left. Admonishing the members is good enough.
KG does not believe in censorship or moderation. He wants errant members to be booted out.
Suhit Kelkar wrote:
And even usually dormant members do no like to get cusswords in their mailbox.
If others too believe in the one person one vote principle, they should vote in this matter. If expletives are allowed today, tomorrow the atmosphere of the list could end up poisoned.
+1
H! Linuxers
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Suhit Kelkar wrote:
And even usually dormant members do no like to get cusswords in their mailbox.
If others too believe in the one person one vote principle, they should vote in this matter. If expletives are allowed today, tomorrow the atmosphere of the list could end up poisoned.
+1
I have created a poll - Please vote
Profanity user on the ILUG-Bom mailing list should be
A. Put on moderation B. Barred from the list C. Awarded for his/her contribution D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
With regards,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Profanity user on the ILUG-Bom mailing list should be
C. Awarded for his/her contribution
;)
H! Once More,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
H! Linuxers
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Suhit Kelkar wrote:
And even usually dormant members do no like to get cusswords in their mailbox.
If others too believe in the one person one vote principle, they should vote in this matter. If expletives are allowed today, tomorrow the atmosphere of the list could end up poisoned.
+1
I have created a poll - Please vote
Profanity user on the ILUG-Bom mailing list should be
A. Put on moderation B. Barred from the list C. Awarded for his/her contribution D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
I made it even more easy to vote
http://dineshah.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/ilug-bom-poll/
Enjoy! With regards,
C. Awarded for his/her contribution
does ilug-bom plan to felicitate them? will this be done at lug meets or annual functions ?
D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
I made it even more easy to vote
http://dineshah.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/ilug-bom-poll/
Enjoy! With regards, -- --Dinesh Shah :-) Shah Micro System +91-98213-11906 Blog-1: http://dineshah.wordpress.com/ Blog-2 http://dineshah.wordpress.com/%0ABlog-2: http://dineshah.blogspot.com/ Carl Sagan - "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
List,
It is time that our LUG meet supplement the OTs we have had recently optimizing the full use of the mailman server ;)
On 3/6/09, Harsh Busa harsh.busa@gmail.com wrote:
C. Awarded for his/her contribution
does ilug-bom plan to felicitate them? will this be done at lug meets or annual functions ?
D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
I made it even more easy to vote
http://dineshah.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/ilug-bom-poll/
Enjoy! With regards, -- --Dinesh Shah :-) Shah Micro System +91-98213-11906 Blog-1: http://dineshah.wordpress.com/ Blog-2 http://dineshah.wordpress.com/%0ABlog-2: http://dineshah.blogspot.com/ Carl Sagan - "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
-- __________________________ http://harsh.busa.in/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
H! Everyone,
Thanks for participating in the poll.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
I have created a poll - Please vote
Profanity user on the ILUG-Bom mailing list should be
A. Put on moderation B. Barred from the list C. Awarded for his/her contribution D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
I made it even more easy to vote
Here is the result of the poll.
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
Now enjoy your Freedom with Responsibility. With regards,
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
I suspect if you consider the members who did not participate and classify
them automatically under "I don't care", an overwhelming majority would say we don't care!
Still good job i guess ..
SG
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sachin Gopalakrishnan mailme@sachingopal.com wrote:
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
I suspect if you consider the members who did not participate and classify
them automatically under "I don't care", an overwhelming majority would say we don't care!
Why should we care for people who "don't care" anyway? ;-)
Still good job i guess ..
Thanks!
SG
With regards,
Forgive the top post. I'm working off a mobile device that doesn't allow it any other way.
I don't think you understood Sachin's mail. It seemed to indicate that the majority don't care about the extremely infrequent use of expletives. And probably care less about the conduction of a poll to determine the course of action in the event of such an infrequent occurance. The whole execise seems a little juvenile.
It doesn't mean that they don't care about the list. It just means that there are more important things than a one-in-ten-thousand occurance.
Ofcourse all this would change if you put statistics about how many expletives have been used on this list during its lifetime. It may also help if you put up numbers that indicate what percentage of the list membership chose to vote in the first place. 36% could mean anything - even 3.6 people out of the 10 who chose to participate in the poll. Also, if you are so serious about that poll why do you choose to ignore the 41% that elected to boot the poster off the list?
-gabin
-- This too shall pass.
-----Original Message----- From: Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:51:38 To: GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, Indialinuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] use of expletives on the FOSS list
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sachin Gopalakrishnan mailme@sachingopal.com wrote:
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
I suspect if you consider the members who did not participate and classify
them automatically under "I don't care", an overwhelming majority would say we don't care!
Why should we care for people who "don't care" anyway? ;-)
Still good job i guess ..
Thanks!
SG
With regards,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Gabin Kattukaran boon@vsnl.com wrote:
anything - even 3.6 people out of the 10 who chose to participate in the poll. Also, if you are so serious about that poll why do you choose to ignore the 41% that elected to boot the poster off the list?
Because the Admins are irresponsible and will make, break and flex the rules as they see fit and almost always make bad / wrong decisions :)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Gabin Kattukaran boon@vsnl.com wrote:
anything - even 3.6 people out of the 10 who chose to participate in the poll. Also, if you are so serious about that poll why do you choose to ignore the 41% that elected to boot the poster off the list?
Because the Admins are irresponsible and will make, break and flex the rules as they see fit and almost always make bad / wrong decisions :)
Lets adopt all options as we can't ignore even 1%. For first step, please give award ...
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Kartik Mistry kartik.mistry@gmail.com wrote:
Lets adopt all options as we can't ignore even 1%. For first step, please give award ...
First step is to boot all Admins out of this list or at the very least strip them of all privileges and yes put all of them on moderation by default :)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
First step is to boot all Admins out of this list or at the very least strip them of all privileges and yes put all of them on moderation by default :)
Why don't they should start with you only? ;)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Gabin Kattukaran boon@vsnl.com wrote:
Forgive the top post. I'm working off a mobile device that doesn't allow it any other way.
Sigh.... How many and how long we will have to make exceptions?
I don't think you understood Sachin's mail. It seemed to indicate that the majority don't care about the extremely infrequent use of expletives. And probably care less about the conduction of a poll to determine the course of action in the event of such an infrequent occurance. The whole execise seems a little juvenile.
I bag your pardon for "misunderstanding" Sachin's mail. Indeed, I am a bit weak in use of English language. :-(
Considering that you think this "exercise" a juvenile, can I "assume" that you have not voted in the poll?
If you voted, you made your choice.
If you didn't, you have lost your right to pass any judgment on the "exercise". If you think there were not enough options, you never asked.
It doesn't mean that they don't care about the list. It just means that there are more important things than a one-in-ten-thousand occurance.
How do you know other list members' opinion? Have you asked each member individually? Did you conduct an opinion poll? Did you do a survey of all/most members of the list?
Wouldn't it be simpler to let us know what is YOUR opinion rather then "assume" what opinions other members have?
Ofcourse all this would change if you put statistics about how many expletives have been used on this list during its lifetime. It may also help if you put up numbers that indicate what percentage of the list membership chose to vote in the first place. 36% could mean anything - even 3.6 people out of the 10 who chose to participate in the poll. Also, if you are so serious about that poll why do you choose to ignore the 41% that elected to boot the poster off the list?
Let me repeat myself, we can only go by the opinion of the people who BOTHERED TO VOTE. This is HOW democracy works.
-gabin
With regards,
2009/3/17 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com:
जैसे बिली को खीर वैसे Indians को Freedom हजम नहि होती।
Perfect!
2009/3/17 Kartik Mistry kartik.mistry@gmail.com:
2009/3/17 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com:
जैसे बिली को खीर वैसे Indians को Freedom हजम नहि होती।
Perfect!
So you noticed! :-)
-- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
With regards,
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Let me repeat myself, we can only go by the opinion of the people who BOTHERED TO VOTE. This is HOW democracy works.
This is how democracy is mangled and presumed as working. It's not. If you dont get a very substantial number to vote you go back and check the causes being put to vote AND many others (not applicable here) like coercion, inability, penalisation post poll by winners etc. Lets not even get into brain dead majority wins result when the total winner votes is less than half of those who did not vote.
2009/3/17 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Gabin Kattukaran boon@vsnl.com wrote:
Forgive the top post. I'm working off a mobile device that doesn't allow it any other way.
Sigh.... How many and how long we will have to make exceptions?
Until you run a poll and figure out how many exceptions are allowed, I suppose.
I bag your pardon for "misunderstanding" Sachin's mail. Indeed, I am a bit weak in use of English language. :-(
Congratulations! on bagging my pardon (I didn't know it was up for grabs ;) Though you still don't seem to get it.
Considering that you think this "exercise" a juvenile, can I "assume" that you have not voted in the poll?
No. I haven't. I'm not part of that very exclusive club of 25 (yes, I checked) that did. If you were to publish the results of a poll honestly, you would have mentioned that fact in the original post about the results.
If you didn't, you have lost your right to pass any judgment on the "exercise". If you think there were not enough options, you never asked.
My choosing not to vote was my way (and that of the vast majority by the numbers) of subtly hinting to you that the poll is a juvenile exercise. Since you didn't take that hint, it has now been made more explicit.
How do you know other list members' opinion? Have you asked each member individually? Did you conduct an opinion poll? Did you do a survey of all/most members of the list?
Refer to the above statement.
Let me repeat myself, we can only go by the opinion of the people who BOTHERED TO VOTE. This is HOW democracy works.
Choosing not to participate in a given poll is an expression of opinion (another hint.)
-gabin
ps: please pay close attention to the auto-generated random signature below.
[Without prejudice to the current issue being discussed]
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
[snip] Let me repeat myself, we can only go by the opinion of the people who BOTHERED TO VOTE. This is HOW democracy works.
Er, maybe not much longer...
SC keeps door open on negative voting:
http://www.indiatogether.org/2009/mar/gov-negvote.htm
So maybe LUG/mailing polls should also have a ``Don't care'' or ``Too trivial to vote for'' or ``None of the choices above suits my current frame of mind'' or ``This crack is good, here, take a hit from the pipe'' option too :)
Regards,
-- Raju
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
[Without prejudice to the current issue being discussed]
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
[snip] Let me repeat myself, we can only go by the opinion of the people who BOTHERED TO VOTE. This is HOW democracy works.
Er, maybe not much longer...
SC keeps door open on negative voting:
NOT VOTING is not same as negative voting. You still have to take trouble and let people know (in the above case EC) that you reject all options available on the list. Do you see the action required from you verses not BOTHERING TO got to VOTING BOOTH?
So maybe LUG/mailing polls should also have a ``Don't care'' or ``Too trivial to vote for'' or ``None of the choices above suits my current frame of mind'' or ``This crack is good, here, take a hit from the pipe'' option too :)
That's my point! If you don't agree to options offered what YOU REQUIRED TO DO is
1. Ask for alternative(s) 2. If not available register your protest
Just not bothering to speak does not mean your VOTE will be registered.
Regards,
-- Raju
Raj Mathur raju@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
With regards, --Dinesh Shah :-) Shah Micro System +91-98213-11906 Blog: http://dineshah.wordpress.com/
जैसे बिली को खीर वैसे Indians को Freedom हजम नहि होती।
On Wednesday 18 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org
wrote:
[Without prejudice to the current issue being discussed]
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
[snip] Let me repeat myself, we can only go by the opinion of the people who BOTHERED TO VOTE. This is HOW democracy works.
Er, maybe not much longer...
SC keeps door open on negative voting:
NOT VOTING is not same as negative voting. You still have to take trouble and let people know (in the above case EC) that you reject all options available on the list. Do you see the action required from you verses not BOTHERING TO got to VOTING BOOTH?
So maybe LUG/mailing polls should also have a ``Don't care'' or ``Too trivial to vote for'' or ``None of the choices above suits my current frame of mind'' or ``This crack is good, here, take a hit from the pipe'' option too :)
That's my point! If you don't agree to options offered what YOU REQUIRED TO DO is
- Ask for alternative(s)
- If not available register your protest
Or the polling commission goes back to the drawing boards.
Just not bothering to speak does not mean your VOTE will be registered.
Besides one must have the following 3 rules 1) Total votes polled MUST exceed 50% of the electorate. 2) winner votes must exceed sum of ALL votes against him 3) Negative votes will be considered as being against the winner.
It does not require any great mathematical brilliance to see the logic. The above prevents policies that favour the vocal minority from believing that their racket is music and thus prevents penalising the silent majority.
The above holds good only for polls on policies. This method again is deeply flawed when applied to electing representatives. In a "proper" democracy one would have proportional representation.
When changes are required in the constitution (immutable principles on which an institution is built ) one would require yet another set of poll rules. Thus one would not be able to make changes to the ground rules without a very tough selection process AND leaves the citizens in no doubt wether they belong to a country or have to move elsewhere.
To me moral policing is the very antithesis of democracy.
On Wednesday 18 Mar 2009, jtd wrote:
[snip] Besides one must have the following 3 rules
- Total votes polled MUST exceed 50% of the electorate.
- winner votes must exceed sum of ALL votes against him
- Negative votes will be considered as being against the winner.
This is brilliant!
Er, I mean, not for the list, but as a guideline for Indian Electoral Reform. Please submit these to the Election Commission and I, at least, back you up (to the hilt!) in getting them implemented.
Hung parliament will be a matter of the past -- after these guidelines are implemented our parliament will be hung, drawn, quartered, trampled on with hobnailed boots, fried in boiling oil and stored underwater for 7 days.
</OT>
Regards,
-- Raju
On Wednesday 18 Mar 2009, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Wednesday 18 Mar 2009, jtd wrote:
[snip] Besides one must have the following 3 rules
- Total votes polled MUST exceed 50% of the electorate.
- winner votes must exceed sum of ALL votes against him
- Negative votes will be considered as being against the winner.
This is brilliant!
Er, I mean, not for the list, but as a guideline for Indian Electoral Reform. Please submit these to the Election Commission and I, at least, back you up (to the hilt!) in getting them implemented.
Hung parliament will be a matter of the past -- after these guidelines are implemented our parliament will be hung, drawn, quartered, trampled on with hobnailed boots, fried in boiling oil and stored underwater for 7 days.
True. Which means it is working as per design. Once these characters are tearing each other (instead of us), the rest can go about the task of nation building. Who knows after a few hundred years they might actually wake up from their fighting.
Gabin Kattukaran wrote:
Forgive the top post. I'm working off a mobile device that doesn't allow it any other way.
I don't think you understood Sachin's mail. It seemed to indicate that the majority don't care about the extremely infrequent use of expletives. And probably care less about the conduction of a poll to determine the course of action in the event of such an infrequent occurance. The whole execise seems a little juvenile.
It doesn't mean that they don't care about the list. It just means that there are more important things than a one-in-ten-thousand occurance.
People who don't vote during elections have similar excuses. Some of us do care for good language being used on this list.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Now enjoy your Freedom with Responsibility.
Lets start by throwing out the admins here and putting in place more responsible admins who dont abuse their powers :)
On Sunday 15 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
H! Everyone,
Thanks for participating in the poll.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह)
dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
I have created a poll - Please vote
Profanity user on the ILUG-Bom mailing list should be
A. Put on moderation B. Barred from the list C. Awarded for his/her contribution D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
I made it even more easy to vote
Here is the result of the poll.
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
what was the total number of votes polled? I am sure it will be a ridiculously low number.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
Now enjoy your Freedom with Responsibility.
Profanity???? Who decides?. Is bloody a profanity? is jerk a profanity? is dork a profanity?
Bloody is commonly used in colloquial english, but if you use it with a non english speaking person he will be deeply offended ( has happened with me) Dork means a male whale's sex organ and commonly used in canada, Oz and NZ and is a profanity that most here wont even know.
Is asshole a profanity ?. How about anal retentive for the profanity super-sensitized.
While speaking in person one can sensitize oneself. While on the net it is difficult.
Come on guys get a life. I have yet to see something more idiotic.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Here is the result of the poll.
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
what was the total number of votes polled? I am sure it will be a ridiculously low number.
How does it mater? We can only go by the number of people who ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO VOTE.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
Now enjoy your Freedom with Responsibility.
Profanity???? Who decides?. Is bloody a profanity? is jerk a profanity? is dork a profanity?
Bloody is commonly used in colloquial english, but if you use it with a non english speaking person he will be deeply offended ( has happened with me) Dork means a male whale's sex organ and commonly used in canada, Oz and NZ and is a profanity that most here wont even know.
Is asshole a profanity ?. How about anal retentive for the profanity super-sensitized.
While speaking in person one can sensitize oneself. While on the net it is difficult.
That is even more reason to be on your guard while writing to a public mailing list. Only way to be "sensitized" on a public mailing list is NOT to use language which could be either misunderstood or could be outright offensive to "someone" on the list. Remember "my dear" episode?
Come on guys get a life. I have yet to see something more idiotic.
What, the poll or use of expletive?
-- Rgds JTD
With regards,
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Here is the result of the poll.
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
what was the total number of votes polled? I am sure it will be a ridiculously low number.
How does it mater? We can only go by the number of people who ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO VOTE.
On such daft topics as using slang (as opposed to abusive words)? The type of epithets i listed is slang. Words such as the F word and are wonderfully descriptive desi gallis have never been used on the list afaik.
People have better things to do. If you dont have more than fifty percent of list members voting, the poll should be scrapped as statistically invalid.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
Now enjoy your Freedom with Responsibility.
Profanity???? Who decides?. Is bloody a profanity? is jerk a profanity? is dork a profanity?
Bloody is commonly used in colloquial english, but if you use it with a non english speaking person he will be deeply offended ( has happened with me) Dork means a male whale's sex organ and commonly used in canada, Oz and NZ and is a profanity that most here wont even know.
Is asshole a profanity ?. How about anal retentive for the profanity super-sensitized.
While speaking in person one can sensitize oneself. While on the net it is difficult.
That is even more reason to be on your guard while writing to a public mailing list.
We ARE writing in English. The episode i described above was in the presence of several other people who speak english. Everyone had a laugh at the cost of the guy who misinterpreted bloody as a galli hurled at him. So it wasn't me who was red faced.
Only way to be "sensitized" on a public mailing list is NOT to use language which could be either misunderstood or could be outright offensive to "someone" on the list. Remember "my dear" episode?
My dear is NOT in any way offensive or profane in english. Period. People were venting spleen on some other issue i presume (i was away at the time and returned to see a mile long thread of god_also_did_not_know_what_was_it_about) and promptly deleted the thread.
Come on guys get a life. I have yet to see something more idiotic.
What, the poll or use of expletive?
Both. Expletives were used for people who do not care about what they do with others email ids. A poll should be for things that matter and castigation for breach of list rules. You cant castigate someone for screwing a list rules breaker, least of all moderating / banning them.
This poll logic seems strange to say the least.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:29 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Dinesh Shah wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Here is the result of the poll.
41% voted for barring the person from the list 36% voted for putting offending member on moderation 18% voted for giving award for "contribution" 5% voted for making offender admin/moderator.
what was the total number of votes polled? I am sure it will be a ridiculously low number.
How does it mater? We can only go by the number of people who ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO VOTE.
On such daft topics as using slang (as opposed to abusive words)? The type of epithets i listed is slang. Words such as the F word and are wonderfully descriptive desi gallis have never been used on the list afaik.
People have better things to do. If you dont have more than fifty percent of list members voting, the poll should be scrapped as statistically invalid.
Considering the majority wants offender to be gaged, admins/mods will put profanity user on the list on moderation for one month followed by expulsion from the list on repeat offense(s).
Now enjoy your Freedom with Responsibility.
Profanity???? Who decides?. Is bloody a profanity? is jerk a profanity? is dork a profanity?
Bloody is commonly used in colloquial english, but if you use it with a non english speaking person he will be deeply offended ( has happened with me) Dork means a male whale's sex organ and commonly used in canada, Oz and NZ and is a profanity that most here wont even know.
Is asshole a profanity ?. How about anal retentive for the profanity super-sensitized.
While speaking in person one can sensitize oneself. While on the net it is difficult.
That is even more reason to be on your guard while writing to a public mailing list.
We ARE writing in English. The episode i described above was in the presence of several other people who speak english. Everyone had a laugh at the cost of the guy who misinterpreted bloody as a galli hurled at him. So it wasn't me who was red faced.
Only way to be "sensitized" on a public mailing list is NOT to use language which could be either misunderstood or could be outright offensive to "someone" on the list. Remember "my dear" episode?
My dear is NOT in any way offensive or profane in english. Period. People were venting spleen on some other issue i presume (i was away at the time and returned to see a mile long thread of god_also_did_not_know_what_was_it_about) and promptly deleted the thread.
Come on guys get a life. I have yet to see something more idiotic.
What, the poll or use of expletive?
Both. Expletives were used for people who do not care about what they do with others email ids. A poll should be for things that matter and castigation for breach of list rules. You cant castigate someone for screwing a list rules breaker, least of all moderating / banning them.
This poll logic seems strange to say the least.
-- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Ever wonder why people swear? It turns out that usually its due to a poor vocabulary. So, it may not be that the person swearing really meant harm. Its probably because they don't know how to express themselves in ample words or are being simply lazy! The added bonus of swearing on a G/LUG list? Its archived for the world to see!!!
Even more enjoyable is the etymology of swear/curse/bawdy words. Where do these come from? I remember, as kids, we used to hear the term "Bloody Bugger" quite commonly (I grew up in Hyderabad). Well, "Bloody" comes from "By your Lady" (mid-ages) and "bugger" is ...I'll let you enjoy that one in the privacy of your LCD monitors! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A753527
cheers, Sameer
On Tuesday 17 Mar 2009, Sameer Verma wrote:
Ever wonder why people swear? It turns out that usually its due to a poor vocabulary.
;-) yes usually the recipients.
Even more enjoyable is the etymology of swear/curse/bawdy words. Where do these come from? I remember, as kids, we used to hear the term "Bloody Bugger" quite commonly (I grew up in Hyderabad). Well, "Bloody" comes from "By your Lady" (mid-ages) and "bugger" is ...I'll let you enjoy that one in the privacy of your LCD monitors! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A753527
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/dcvgr10.txt
GAWD I never wanna pass from an ACADEMY.
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 21:29:42 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) wrote:
what was the total number of votes polled? I am sure it will be a ridiculously low number.
How does it mater? We can only go by the number of people who ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO VOTE.
we once had a poll on the chennai list on the issue of where reply-to should point. The list admin declared that he would accept the result as long as 5% of the list members voted - that came to 75 members. A poll app was set up, and after much publicity and cajoling, we got 68 votes, which was accepted by the admin. The voting was by secret ballot and only members of the list were allowed to vote - one vote per person and no option to change the vote. The result was 60 for and 8 against. This kind of thing makes sense when there is a serious issue involved.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 21:29:42 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) wrote:
what was the total number of votes polled? I am sure it will be a ridiculously low number.
How does it mater? We can only go by the number of people who ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO VOTE.
we once had a poll on the chennai list on the issue of where reply-to should point. The list admin declared that he would accept the result as long as 5% of the list members voted - that came to 75 members. A poll app was set up, and after much publicity and cajoling, we got 68 votes, which was accepted by the admin. The voting was by secret ballot and only members of the list were allowed to vote - one vote per person and no option to change the vote. The result was 60 for and 8 against. This kind of thing makes sense when there is a serious issue involved.
You could avoid such controversies by using better language and setting examples for others. Why is it so difficult to be polite?
On Thursday 19 March 2009 01:09:06 Rony wrote:
we once had a poll on the chennai list on the issue of where reply-to should point. The list admin declared that he would accept the result as long as 5% of the list members voted - that came to 75 members. A poll app was set up, and after much publicity and cajoling, we got 68 votes, which was accepted by the admin. The voting was by secret ballot and only members of the list were allowed to vote - one vote per person and no option to change the vote. The result was 60 for and 8 against. This kind of thing makes sense when there is a serious issue involved.
You could avoid such controversies by using better language and setting examples for others. Why is it so difficult to be polite?
you sound like my mother ;-)
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 19 Mar 2009, Rony wrote:
You could avoid such controversies by using better language and setting examples for others. Why is it so difficult to be polite?
to people stuffing trash in your pocket?
There are list rules to take care of that. I would also request List Admins to use admin email accounts when addressing the list as admins. This removes the personality behind the admin and keeps focus on the administrative action.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह)
I have created a poll - Please vote
Profanity user on the ILUG-Bom mailing list should be
A. Put on moderation B. Barred from the list C. Awarded for his/her contribution D. Made list moderator/administrator
Please take your pick!
A Put under moderation.That's fair enough and gives another chance to improvise.
-
Dinesh Joshi -
Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) -
gabin kattukaran -
Gabin Kattukaran
-
Harsh Busa -
jtd -
Kartik Mistry -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Rony Bill
-
Roshan -
Sachin Gopalakrishnan -
Sameer Verma -
Suhit Kelkar