Re: A89: where to get one *OFF LIST TOPIC*
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: where to get one *OFF LIST TOPIC*
i agree with you. there isn't any other place to
discuss any 89 related topic, other than the 89/92 discussion group TI
offers. b/w the two of them, this one is more convenient.
that's probably why most people send their messages to this one.
plus, ticalc is so popular that most people don't even know that TI has
one of their own.
right now there really aren't many ASM topics to discuss. from what
i know, people have said they need to figure something out before they
can start coding ASM programs. so until that happens, most
questions will just be related toward the 89.
we should deal with it. we'll all live. i hope . . .
At 03:43 AM 9/7/98, you wrote:
>
>Note: the entirety of the below letter is not on the topic set by
this
>list. If, for this reason, you would not like to read it,
please feel no
>obligation to do otherwise.
>
>> Please, this is an ASSEMBLY list. If a question is not
directly related to
>> assembly programming, do not post it here.
>
>Awe, for once just SHUT UP (this is in no way aimed personally
>at electrum, who I highly regard for his knowledge and
contribution).
>There is no off topic thread that's more common on these lists
than
>the one about off-topic threads! And frankly, that's the one
I'm the
>most tired of hearing, by about a factor of three. I've sent
letters
>condoning off-topicness before like this one. They do no
good.
>The only way to combat off-topicness is for an administrator to
>either preread the letters (practically impossible here) or
send
>personal mail to the offenders later (and then remove flagrant
>repeat offenders) (this probably should be taking place but
isn't).
>
>My point is that everyone who's not an administrator should
>tolerate it instead of fueling it. If it's a valid question,
answer
>it or ignore it. It's your choice. Your only other
freedom in
>this respect is to sign off the list. I personally believe
everyone
>has become way to strict in their definition of on-topic as
well.
>It's about the 89. It's a valid question. WHERE ELSE
DO
>THEY ASK? Just pretend the name is Non-Basic-89 or
>something like that. We should open up our tolerance
meters
>a little bit here people. And also, is it that big of a
deal?
>So one person just cost you 15 seconds of reading time.
>Is that any reason for you to cost a hundred people the same?
>
>Once again, this is in no way directed at electrum. I
have
>been contemplating this for several weeks now and electrum's
>letter just gave me a chance to express my opinions about it.
>I've written as many letters like electrum's as anyone on the
>lists. Please don't take this as a personal flame or reply
to
>this with personal flames (I have no problem with constructive,
>intelligent comments from opposing views).
>
>All of this is IMHO.
>
{-kimo-}
Summers never live up to your expectations . . .
-kimo
_____________________________________
Follow-Ups:
References: