David at longley.demon.co.uk
Thu Mar 18 04:45:51 EST 2004
Let me put a hypothetical to you Ken.
What if some ISPs charge their clients for the number of newsgroup
messages they download? over 30 inane posts one after another.
Are you aware of what your thoughtlessness could cost them?
In article <iEb6c.27121$%06.6353 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, ken
>Where has 'dinosaur' gone?
>K. P. Collins
>"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
>news:loi430ho3f9lnjht1l6402lvvhv92gg1uq at 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:40:59 GMT, "k p Collins"
>> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } A number of folks have commented
>> } on what they've referred to as my
>> } 'disruptiveness'.
>> } In this post, I'll explore that, a bit.
>> } What have I, or am I, 'disrupting?
>> } Discussions here in b.n?
>> } Come on, folks! If a discussion
>> } cannot be sustained in the face of
>> } anyone's comments, then that's
>> } disclosing, with respect to what was
>> } the 'information-content' of the dis-
>> } cussion, isn't it?
>> } Yup.
>> } So it can't be that.
>> It is disruptive to insert irrelevant information. Worse, it is
>> misleading. Whn there's a specific question, and your respond with
>> material that at best wastes the time of the reader and is likely to
>> confuse them, THAT is disruptive. Irrelevant information is not and
>> does not lead to discussion of the matter at hand. If anything, it
>> leads discussion of entirely different things. Since it was the
>> questioners intent to obtain a direct answer to a direct question,
>> when this happens, yes, it is disruptive.
>> This has been explained several different ways now. Do you understand
>> it? I am not asking if you agree or if you like it, I am asking if you
More information about the Neur-sci