[ruby-talk:14446] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.

>
>Subject: [ruby-talk:14440] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.
>   From: MJ Ray <[e-mail]>
>   Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:41:25 +0900
>     To: [e-mail] (ruby-talk ML), [e-mail]
>
>Marc Butler <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> I don't understand the difficulties of splitting the newsgroup to reflect
>> two mailing lists.  However, if this is problematic then it is a 
>> consideration.
>
>If comp.* functions as with other structures which I am familiar with,
>you would need to win a vote of participants by some margin.  From
>this discussion so far, it looks like this would not happen, although
>I am aware that many people are (probably quite rightly) silent on the
>issue so far.

For my intuition the silence indicates this thread should die, and the 
sooner the better.  I certainly have no desire to keep it going as it
would be useless to do so.

>
>> I was addressing technical assertions as work arounds which nullify my 
>> point.  I was simply countering that these assertions are not sufficient 
>> to  address my concerns.
>
>If your concern is anything other than personal convenience of
>yourself and a minority like you, please state it.  A number of valid
>ways of achieving what you desire without upheaval for all on the list
>and group have been given, so why should a split still proceed?

I think it diminishes the utility of the list to be filled with many
(and often seemingly pointless) discussions about non-technical issues.
I think it is off putting to newcomers, and does nothing to improve Ruby
per se.  However, people clearly wish to participate such discussions and 
they should have a forum to do so.

>
>> Like Kent, you are attempting to argue by
>> attacking me rather than my concerns.  (At least in this post.)
>
>I have not attacked you and I find the assertion offensive.

You assert I am unwilling or unable to configure my mail/news facilities
appropriately.  If I was able to this would not be a concern.  This is
definitely *personal*.

I apologise to you if you find the assertion offense.  I certainly took
no offense, it was not intended to offended, just counter your argument.
You have my sincere apology. (FWIW)

If you want to discuss this further please contact me directly.  I don't
think this would be useful, except to clarify what I have said.  My
assertions where not intended to offend, and I am happy to continue to 
clarify them until an amicable understanding is reached.  I'm sorry but
this is the best I can offer.

>-- 
>MJR

Sincerely, Marc.