Re: DaveNet and FoRK

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Dave Long (
Date: Fri Sep 29 2000 - 12:25:45 PDT

> adam wouldn't have let the davenet subscription go through
> if he didn't think it was at least a marginally good idea, right?

'cept it works the other way around -- FoRK
was sub'd to DaveNet.

Since DaveNet pieces on FoRK are old bits by
definition, they should follow our generally
accepted fork forwarding practices: someone
(Dave, you, Eli's pet AI, but not M-X yow or
Mark V. Shaney) ought to have the decency to
provide a few new bits along with the forward.

Thanks for the unsubscription, Dave.


> As for encouraging conflict ...I dont think this list encouraes it so much
> as the topics and the attitude let people be themselves without all the
> layers of "polite" crud that hinders free expression.

I'd call it engagement more than conflict.
FoRK may not be genteel, it may not even
be polite, but we do have some standards.

Pure conflict (true flaming, as opposed to
a good fork rant) is as boring as would be
pure consensus.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 12:13:48 PDT