Question about 50th anniversary edition

Quoth cbstewart3rd.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com in article
<1152764684.636483.85910.TakeThisOut@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
[big snip]
> > So those are at least a few of my concerns about thread resurrection.
> > I'd be interested in seeing a similar list of positive points about
> > the practice, and in seeing counter-arguments to these.

> Done.

Any my thanks! I'm not feeling inspired to go through all of your
points one by one just now, but you've done a good job of justifying
the other side of this issue for me. I still feel a bit weird about
resurrecting old threads (I wouldn't do it myself!), but I won't feel
quite as uncomfortable if others choose to do so.

But perhaps a bit of a compromise could be reached. What if we ask
that any post resurrecting an old thread begin with a paragraph or two
re-introducing the topic and summarizing the preceeding discussion?
(Much as would be the case at the start of an entirely new thread on
an old topic.) I don't think that I'd have the slightest complaint
about such a post, even if it went on to quote extensively from the
old thread (and included an appropriate old-thread References:
header).

Thoughts?
Steuard Jensen
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown.RemoveThis@fastmail.fm> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.1f308c609c53b5ec98a5fb@news.individual.net...
> Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:26:19 GMT from Steuard Jensen
> <sbjensen.RemoveThis@midway.uchicago.edu>:
>> But perhaps a bit of a compromise could be reached. What if we ask
>> that any post resurrecting an old thread begin with a paragraph or two
>> re-introducing the topic and summarizing the preceeding discussion?
>
> I like this idea.

I liek the idea of everybody deciding on their own what theywant to psot.
This isn't a totalitarian, Singapore-style newsgroup like alt.fan.pratchett.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Öjevind Lång wrote:

> This isn't a totalitarian, Singapore-style newsgroup like
> alt.fan.pratchett.

Really? alt.fan.pratchett is like that? That's so un-prachetty!

Yeah, I don't care who posts what. The few posters who have nothing at all
worth reading get killfiled, those (two to my recollection) who never post
to anything under a month old get killfiled just because my memory isn't
good enough to follow along, and the rest I read or not at my whim.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Stan Brown wrote:

> Don't be silly. There is a vast difference between someone making
> suggestions and a "totalitarian, Singapore-style newsgroup".
>
> Sometimes I wish that these idiots who compare calls for civility to
> fascist dictatorships had a chance to experience life in a real
> fascist dictatorship.

It's called hyperbole, Stan. Nobody is even implying that the suggestion
that we don't resurrect threads is "totalitarian". If anybody had, I'd be
complaining about you calling Ojevind an idiot - but since he didn't, you
must not have done... However, when you start making rules about who may
post what, it's the thin edge of the wedge. You start with the perfectly
reasonable rules, and pretty soon someone's saying we shouldn't discuss
PJ's movies, because it just gets people fighting.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown.DeleteThis@fastmail.fm> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.1f31ccf77110addc98a602@news.individual.net...

[snip]

> Don't be silly. There is a vast difference between someone making
> suggestions and a "totalitarian, Singapore-style newsgroup".

Except that the "suggestions" are then rammed down everybody's throats as
"the way we do things in this group".

> Sometimes I wish that these idiots who compare calls for civility to
> fascist dictatorships had a chance to experience life in a real
> fascist dictatorship.

That was the most interesting call for civility I have seen for some time.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

"Derek Broughton" <news DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
news:19rmp3-6ul.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>> This isn't a totalitarian, Singapore-style newsgroup like
>> alt.fan.pratchett.
>
> Really? alt.fan.pratchett is like that? That's so un-prachetty!

The last thing I heard, they had no less than 13 (thirteen) FAQs you were
expected to read before posting. You also have to use tags to inform
everybody of the nature of your post: I and R and M and so on - I don't
remember what they stand for. And even if some newbie who posts observes all
the rules, he is still at peril of being slammed by members of the ruling
camarilla for "discussing something we have already discussed enough in this
group". It is a joke of cosmic dimensions that a group dedicated to a great
humorist is so anal.

> Yeah, I don't care who posts what. The few posters who have nothing at
> all
> worth reading get killfiled, those (two to my recollection) who never post
> to anything under a month old get killfiled just because my memory isn't
> good enough to follow along, and the rest I read or not at my whim.

I think that is the attitude we should cultivate in the Tolkien newsgroups.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Quoth "Öjevind Lång" <bredband.net.RemoveThis@ojevind.lang> in article
<4iq9dcF50chjU1.RemoveThis@individual.net>:
> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown.RemoveThis@fastmail.fm> skrev:
> > Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:26:19 GMT from Steuard Jensen:
> >> But perhaps a bit of a compromise could be reached. What if we ask
> >> that any post resurrecting an old thread begin with a paragraph or two
> >> re-introducing the topic and summarizing the preceeding discussion?

> > I like this idea.

> I liek the idea of everybody deciding on their own what theywant to psot.

I like that idea, too. But surely you don't object to people
mentioning that "hey, when you do ____, it bugs me a little", do you?
Particularly if they even suggest a minor little change that would
eliminate that irritation?

I certainly don't want to /force/ anyone to follow a host of petty
rules, but I don't see anything wrong with people talking through an
issue like this and looking for a solution that everyone likes. (And
if the issue happens to come up repeatedly, and each time people
eventually tend to agree on the same resolution, I don't see that
there's anything wrong with putting that resolution in a FAQ of some
kind. Not as dictatorial law, but more as a sort of "common law" or
at least "common courtesy".)

Steuard Jensen
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

"Steuard Jensen" <sbjensen DeleteThis @midway.uchicago.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:pQfyg.144$25.4251@news.uchicago.edu...

[snip]

>> I liek the idea of everybody deciding on their own what theywant to psot.
>
> I like that idea, too. But surely you don't object to people
> mentioning that "hey, when you do ____, it bugs me a little", do you?
> Particularly if they even suggest a minor little change that would
> eliminate that irritation?
>
> I certainly don't want to /force/ anyone to follow a host of petty
> rules, but I don't see anything wrong with people talking through an
> issue like this and looking for a solution that everyone likes. (And
> if the issue happens to come up repeatedly, and each time people
> eventually tend to agree on the same resolution, I don't see that
> there's anything wrong with putting that resolution in a FAQ of some
> kind. Not as dictatorial law, but more as a sort of "common law" or
> at least "common courtesy".)

The revival of old threads is not a common occurrence, so I doubt that the
subject fits comfortably into a document called "Frequently Asked
Questions". Basically, I think a FAQ should only include information that is
helpful to a majority of new posters, and that for the rest one should trust
the majority of posters to show good judgement and courtesy. Those who will
not show good judgement and courtesy are unlikely to be moved by a FAQ. And
by this, I don't want to imply that I think there is something wrong with
reviving old threads; sometimes it leads to interesting or amusing new
posts.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Steuard Jensen schreef:

(snip)
>
> But perhaps a bit of a compromise could be reached. What if we ask
> that any post resurrecting an old thread begin with a paragraph or two
> re-introducing the topic and summarizing the preceeding discussion?
> (Much as would be the case at the start of an entirely new thread on
> an old topic.) I don't think that I'dhave the slightest complaint
> about such a post, even if it went on to quote extensively from the
> old thread (and included an appropriate old-thread References:
> header).
>
> Thoughts?
>
We'd also have to define 'old thread'. The last post to this thread was
sent 10 days ago. Is that an old thread? Should I also have to begin
with a paragraph or two re-introducing the topic and summarizing the
preceeding discussion?

The resistance I feel towards doing that makes me realise your well
meant proposition is a barrier against resurrecting old threads, and
therefore I cannot agree with it.

Henriette
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Stan Brown schreef:

> Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:09:52 +0200 from Öjevind Lång
> <bredband.net.TakeThisOut@ojevind.lang>:

> > The revival of old threads is not a common occurrence
>
> Huh? You must have set your filters differently from mine.
>
It is a matter of definition of both 'old thread' and 'common
occurrence'. I'd say an old thread is resurrected about once per month
through once bi-monthly, so not a common occurence.

Henriette
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Quoth "Henriette" <heldenib.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> in article
<1155202513.275171.173550.TakeThisOut@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
> Steuard Jensen schreef:
> > But perhaps a bit of a compromise could be reached. What if we ask
> > that any post resurrecting an old thread begin with a paragraph or two
> > re-introducing the topic and summarizing the preceeding discussion?

> We'd also have to define 'old thread'. The last post to this thread was
> sent 10 days ago. Is that an old thread?

Good question. I'm not sure how it would be defined, but the
notion that I've had in mind has probably been something like "more
than a month since the last post". A week or two doesn't seem that
old to me: even some people who post pretty regularly here don't make
it by more often than that.

> The resistance I feel towards doing that [adding a summary
> paragraph] makes me realise your well meant proposition is a barrier
> against resurrecting old threads, and therefore I cannot agree with
> it.

Drat. Would it feel as onerous if the last post had been, say, two
months ago? In any case, I'm not demanding a blow-by-blow recap of
the foregoing discussion, but just requesting a few sentences
outlining the general context. (And I suppose that if the quoted text
already gave a reasonably comprehensive overview, there might be no
need for you to add a summary at all, or maybe just one line at the
top mentioning that you're resurrecting an old thread.)

I guess we'll just see over time how people deal with the issue.

Steuard Jensen
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition 

Steuard Jensen schreef:

> Quoth "Henriette" <heldenib DeleteThis @hotmail.com> in article
> <1155202513.275171.173550 DeleteThis @q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
?>
> > The resistance I feel towards doing that [adding a summary
> > paragraph] makes me realise your well meant proposition is a barrier
> > against resurrecting old threads, and therefore I cannot agree with
> > it.
>
> Drat. Would it feel as onerous if the last post had been, say, two
> months ago? In any case, I'm not demanding a blow-by-blow recap of
> the foregoing discussion, but just requesting a few sentences
> outlining the general context. (And I suppose that if the quoted text
> already gave a reasonably comprehensive overview, there might be no
> need for you to add a summary at all, or maybe just one line at the
> top mentioning that you're resurrecting an old thread.)

Yes, I think we have to take the quoted text into account and the
context of the message. E.g. when anyone tries to rekindle an old
flame-war they first *do* have to give a blow-by-blow recap of the
foregoing discussion, with dates, extensive summaries and background
information. With any other subject, this is not necessary;-)

I also think we have to take people's personal circumstances into
account: have they not been able to post because they just moved...,
do they have an illness which prevents them at times from posting, have
they been on a holiday, etc.
>
> I guess we'll just see over time how people deal with the issue.

Let's!

Henriette
 >> Stay informed about: Question about 50th anniversary edition