The OT category helps keep the other areas filtered. Kind of like talking in the break room... You Might miss something you want by dumping the OT but that comes with the filter. John Ferrell http://DixieNC.US ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olin Lathrop" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:27 AM Subject: [OT] Too OT? > Russell McMahon wrote: >> Politics? - I don't think so. >> > > I enabled OT a while ago because I noticed sometimes there were some > interesting technical discussions there. Some were a little past [EE], > while others should have been [EE] and were mistagged. This list is of > course primarily about PICs, but useful discussion of PIC will naturally > include the circuits around them and the systems and technologies they are > embedded in. I think it makes sense to have the [PIC] and [EE] topics. > That leaves any remaining technical discussion of the broader embedded > systems and their technologies in the great unwashed realm of [OT]. > Unfortunately [OT] is overrun with way too much stuff that has absolutely > nothing to do with PICs or embedded systems. Is there some way to > participate in the broader PIC/embedded/technology discussions without > having to wade thru all the pointless and tedious political/religious > rants? > > I can understand a thread occasionally wandering off topic, perhaps even > slightly into the political or religious on rare occasions. That's normal > human nature. Each poster only changes the subject a little bit, so the > whole thread wanders without anyone really being much at fault. Most of > the > time the thread would die on its own, or sometimes an admin might need to > step in and ask people to stop. (Hopefully this can be done politely > without shouting or saying "nn WARNING". The presumption should be that > it > was not deliberate until deomonstrated otherwise.) > > However, what irks me is when these kinds of threads are deliberately > started. The one from Russel this morning is a case in point. Hopefully > people won't take the bait and start another lengthy pointless discussion. > But alas, I expect that the troll will be well fed once again. > > The previous case started with an inappropriate signature line that > clearly > was meant to make a political or religious statement. Most everyone here > either ignored it or didn't even notice (the latter for me). But > unfortunately it takes only one to light the spark. A lengthy deliberate > message was launched just on that issues, then it went on. And on and on > and on. > > What's the answer? Well I guess the current answer is "Too bad, that's > OT". > Is everyone comfortable with that? I think there are better solutions. I > suggest the following: > > 1 - Broaden the definition of the [EE] topic to include the greater > embedded > systems the PIC is in and their technology. I think most people who are > interested in PICs and the circuits surrounding them would also be > interested in the systems and technology surrounding the circuits. > > 2 - Failing #1, create a new topic [EMB] or [TECH] for discussion of what > #1 > would have added to [EE]. > > 3 - Absolutely positively not allow discussion of religion, or politics > that > has nothing to do with PICs, embedded systems, or their technology. > Political advocacy is strictly prohibited in any case. This goes for > signature lines or any other part of a message, since those have been > shown > to start such discussions. > > I'm sorry this post adds to the noise, but at least it is about the list > and > it is about trying to resolve something that is within the capability of > the > people here to resolve. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist