Since most everyone receiving the *list* is interested in coding . . . . . why not just * code* the topics , to allow the best filtering possible. I know with *outlook express* , I can setup inbox assistant to perform all of it automatically. Stashing each topic catagory in a separate folder for later viewing / deleting. What could be so hard about that ! I would suggest the following example and there could be a rule that if a subscriber doesn't abide by the coding then they can have their email locked out of the server . - No Code = Pic Related Topic Only - [OT] = Off Topic , but related to electronics or programming - [PT] = Personal Topics So . . . with that , I can setup inbox assistant to * flush * the mailbox , less what I want to see. Gee !!! especially useful for those lengthy mid-western thunderstorms that keep you off line long enough to accumilate 150 + messages !!! Regards . . . Steve -----Original Message----- From: Richard Graziano To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [OT] suggestion for dealing with "noise" >How about setting one day, say Friday, for religious and political OT? > >Brian Kraut wrote: > >> I don't think it would be at all impolite for you or Jory to butt in on >> religious/political/otherwise non technical and non contributory posts and say >> when it is time to take it offline for those that can't figure it ot for >> themselves. >> >> Mark Willis wrote: >> >> > I'll re-post the Mini-FAQ soonly, it covers all this (Need to go get >> > things done today.) >> > >> > Mark >> > >> > Stevens, Kurt wrote: >> > > >> > > I like this idea, but I believe it would have to work in conjunction with an >> > > agreed upon list of what constituted unacceptable postings. These might >> > > include: >> > > >> > > personal attacks >> > > religion >> > > politics >> > > spam >> > > >> > > Is there a set of guidlines that defines limits for posting to the piclist, >> > > and if not, why not? >> > > >> > > > ---------- >> > > > From: William K. Borsum[SMTP:borsum@DASCOR.COM] >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:19 AM >> > > > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >> > > > Subject: [OT] suggestion for dealing with "noise" >> > > > >> > > > Hi All: >> > > > Just got to get my penny's worth in again... >> > > > >> > > > Some years ago I was a moderator at a rather large conference. As usual >> > > > there were a few folks who insisted on carrying on loud conversations in >> > > > the auditorium during the talks. During the first lunch break, a number >> > > > of >> > > > people came to me as a "representative of authority" and cried, pleaded, >> > > > begged and threatened me to please DO something about this extreme >> > > > discourtesy to the other attendees. >> > > > >> > > > After the break, I pointed out to the audience that many things don't work >> > > > in our lives, and the lives of others because no one is willing to take >> > > > personal responsibility for fixing the situation--they would rather let >> > > > "the authorities" handle it. I suggested that if the folks in the >> > > > audience >> > > > found the situation getting out of hand, then the offenders should be >> > > > gently and lovingly corrected. my intention was that those around the >> > > > chatterboxes should get them aside and suggest they take their >> > > > conversations out into the foyer. >> > > > >> > > > Things went well for an hour or so, and all was quiet until, inevitably, >> > > > the chatterboxes started up again. Almost in unison, 750 people turned >> > > > towards them and said SHUSH. >> > > > >> > > > Its a thought. If I got multiple messages (OFF THE LIST PLEASE!) telling >> > > > me to SHUSH, there's a chance I might get the idea that my conduct was not >> > > > appropriate. >> > > > >> > > > Kelly >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > William K. Borsum, P.E. -- OEM Dataloggers and Instrumentation Systems >> > > > & San Diego, California, USA >> > > > >