On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 05:51:19PM +1000, Lindsay Sprinter wrote:
I understand the problem of offtopic threads on the net but I believe one should be able to discuss important sensible issues with out being forced to listen to stuff one has no interest in. Luv has very strongly put its position so in the end I am gone.
so far, LUV hasn't expressed any position at all. some members have expressed their own personal positions.
The post was a genuine query but I will admit it was an "agent provacteur" (or how ever you spell that) to see if something like this would occur, after the incedent with the speaker thread late last year a friend said "What are you doing with a technical group that forbids certain technical topics, thats not like you".
luv-main doesn't forbid certain technical topics. luv-main has a specific focus on linux- and LUV- related topics. there's a difference. conversations tend to drift and wander around a bit but they generally START being relevant to linux or LUV and generally remain mostly relevant. in this particular case, your important security issue was about a windows virus - ANY email asking you to read a "document" that turns out to be a .exe is *guaranteed* to be some kind of virus. windows viruses are not in the least bit relevant to linux or to luv. they're not sensible or important or even interesting here (yet you wanted to force us to discuss it here, so YOU didn't have to be "forced" to discuss it on luv-talk. strange) ignoring the irony in that you have, in effect, done the equivalent of asking and expecting your plumber to teach you how to bake a cake. on their own time, because you chanced to run into them. or something like that. there are other mailing lists where that topic is entirely relevant (and where discussing linux in-depth would be off-topic, and probably flame-bait). craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #405: Sysadmins unavailable because they are in a meeting talking about why they are unavailable so much.