Re: Re WIT

Brian Behlendorf <>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 00:27:56 +0200
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: Brian Behlendorf <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
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 Sat, 11 Jun 1994, Jon P. Knight wrote:
> 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?

What I had in mind was more general than that - keeping in mind that
the main way I want to use this is to narrow the amount of information
I feel compelled to read by subjecting it to a form of peer review.
Maybe then "approve" is a bad term - maybe "recognition"?  

Let's say there was a post which contained points you agreed with and
some you disagreed with.  If you care about the topic, and wish to 
address the points you like and those you didn't, making a followup
post is the best way to communicate that.  But, you would still put
a mark of "recognition" on it, so that when I come through the archives
looking for things you and others thought merited attention, then I
see this post, and your reply.  If it's a subject you have no interest
in, you don't mark it.  If it's another piece of spamming by the law
firm of Canter and Seigal (I can never spell their names right) then
I could even give it a negative recognition, if we found such 
appellations useful.