Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #654

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #654
From: gma <gma@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:35:36 -0800
ClassicVW@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 12/14/98 3:58:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, gma@xxxxxxxxxx
> writes:<<
>  > 2)  How arrogant to assume that putting a disclaimer at the beginning gives
>  > you the privilege of hijacking the list.
>  > 3)  It has been happening often.  Repeatedly.  Boringly.  I am relatively
>  > new to this list, and this thread has dismayed me.  Of course, I delete it.
>  > It is neither relevant nor interesting.
>   Get a life, Eric.  No one hijacked the list. It's still here. So am I
>  and so are you.  If the thread was so boring and dismaying, why did u
>  read it?   I'm always amazed at how a brief off-topic foray can get such a
> drastic
>  response from some folks. GET OVER IT.
>   >>
> Maybe Eric and I joined the list at an unusual time, but he does have a
> legitimate gripe- the past few days have given us more than a few postings
> with NO Olympus content- yes, we can just delete the thread, but many people
> just hit the reply button and then switch to a different topic, so we have to
> look at the posting before we realize that it's beside the Olympus point. This
> wastes our time, not to mention stuffing our mailboxes. And don't tell us to
> keep hitting delete or to unsubscribe from the list, that's not the answer.
> After all, this is an Olympus list, not the Saab list. I wonder if you'd be so
> understanding if I started conversing about my gun collection or my love for
> cigars, I somehow feel you would hit the roof, and understandedly so. So I'll
> save my not politically correct hobbies for the proper place and time. As
> should the people who want to debate the virtues of a 1986 vs. a 1990 Saab.
> This IS and should remain the Olympus list. Talk off the list- directly e-mail
> the person if the conversation is about other topics. Again, maybe I'm new and
> this doesn't happen every day, at least I hope it doesn't.
> Thanks. Yes, I do feel better now.
> >>>George S.
>

Jeez, you know, you and Eric are right.  It's much more constructive to
have these off-topic e-mails flying back and forth, whining about how
many off-topic e-mails there are and calling list members arrogant and
self-absorbed, than it would have been to ignore the 2 off-topic e-mails
that pissed you guys off in the first place. 

And, IMHO, if the conversation leads into cigars or guns, which it has
in the past, and a post or two follows up with additional information on
that subject that is OK.  That's the natural way conversations flow.  I
am capable of hitting the del key without too much effort if I find I
don't want to read a message.  

Where would you 2 draw the line on off-topic posts?  
Cars? Yeah, maybe, altho folks do a lot of travel and some 4 wheeling on
their photo outings.  Sometimes folks want to know others' experiences
re vehicles.
Nikon v Canon? Yeah, maybe.  but that particular list member has been a
contributor for years and was asking for help/opinions.  I found his
research into the other 2 systems informative.
How about Ansel Adams?  I launched an off-topic about him, based on a
statement or question in someone else's post ablut one of his photos. 
Do you really consider a few e-mails about AA to be that offenseive on a
camera list?  

Would you like to form a committee to oversee the content? 

george  :>)

And, BTW, George S, it's interesting to me that you chose to respond
once again to the off-topic subject,  rather than address the question
re the ZUIKO 50-250 I asked you in my response to your explanation
message.

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz