Re: Re WIT
"Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 21:54:23 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <Pine.3.05.9406112036.A5965-b100000@suna>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Re WIT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 2) Seal of Approvals - instead of being able to merely "agree" and
> "disagree", users can apply "approvals" and "disapprovals" to
> any post they read. No comment to be left, just a general sign of
> support or an indication by the reader that this is a Good post.
But what happens if a posting contains some points I agree with and some
that I disagree with. This is the most common form of posting in both
mailing lists and on the USENET as far as I'm concerned. Do I just cut
out each point separately and attach an ``agree'', ``disagree'' or
``ambivalent'' SOAP to them? Or am I forced to make an overall judgement
of the posting as a whole? Or split it up into sub-topics, even if they
haven't deviated greatly from the main topic?
Jon
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* Its not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important. *