[ale] [OT] Big Brother Wins, We lose... From /. Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0

[ChangingLINKS.com]

On Thursday May 12 2005 07:53, Geoffrey wrote:
> ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
> > Next time, argue that people should use OT in the subject line.
> > Everyone agrees that the use of [OT] is considerate and allows those not
> > wishing to see these political threads a way to filter.
>
> Better yet, use [PT] 'Political Topic', hence folks who simply aren't
> interested in building on the flamewar can filter on that.  

I vote against the [PT] .
My thinking is that if we can't get people to USE [OT] consistently, there is 
no way they will remember to use [PT]. I thought that telling people to use 
[OT] would be a solution, BUT then there will be tons of flamewars on what is 
"[OT] or not." A better solution is to charge $1 for failing to use [OT] - 
but again, enforcement of that rule would cause enforcement flamewars. :)

> Seriously, 
> there's never been any productive discussions on politics on this list.
> Nothing is gained, people just blow the bandwidth.

There IS something gained in these flamewars. 
   If there wasn't, they wouldn't happen.
    I can think of numerous benefits off of the top of my head.

Likewise, the "wasting/blowing bandwidth" objection gets repeated everytime a 
discussion is [OT]. The objection is not only invalid, but just as 
"non-productive" as the original thread. Still, apparently there IS a benefit 
for restating the false argument of "saving bandwidth."

Flamewars, Saving bandwidth and other seemingly pointless behaviors will 
always be a part of this list. The "wise" don't participate, post worthless 
objections, or even post objections TO those objections.
-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy, and Laughter,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com


/objection to an objection