Re: On topic or off topic (was Re: The cost of Mental Health)

"Ian Davis" <ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gq18ll$4kt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <72ijelFq6oh7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ian Davis" <ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gq0pk7$vq0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

*snip*

I think David was trying to make a point. Perhaps he was wanting
to explore what the definition of off-topic was.

On topic: considered by the current audience to have content that is
a positive contribution to the subject(s) that the group is
interested in. Fluff: considered by the current audience to build
and/or consolodate the social comaradie of the group, but not offer
significant *content* Off-topic: Having no positive benefit to the
group.

The responses to posts are an accurate measure: if the responses are
generally positive, then the original post was considered enough 'on
topic' to be welcomed. If there are no responses, or the responses
are almost entirely negative, the odds are good that the topic,
whatever it happened to be, was not considered 'welcome' by the
audience.


Upon occasion gangs of people think it fun to take over newsgroups and
exploit their access to them to drive the "regulars" crazy by
deliberately posting vast amounts of off-topic material, such as "you
did", "didn't", "you did", and so on. I don't think their postings
become on-topic
merely because they hold a numeric majority on a newsgroup, and
welcome their own posts. Same thing can happen in other contexts. I
know of
a green party which experienced the home invasion involved in a group
gaining membership merely to oust the current leadership, and then
change the agenda to one that had little to do with green party
policies.

Your formula seems to invite such tyranny by a majority.

The how else do you recommend how the acceptable topics of conversation
(activity, focus, fund raising etc etc) are defined?

I have a
sense that if something is established for a purpose there is a
certain dishonesty and deceit involved in keeping the label the same
while changing the contents and labelling the new contents still
"on-topic" to the label.

In two other groups I tend to post to, there are topics which are considered
'on topic' by default. In the moderated Wiccan group, cats, books, food and
snow ballistas[1] are acceptable topics and won't be rejected by the
moderators. In the cat group, other pets, children's antics, major life
events, books, food and movies are so well discussed they are also
considered 'on topic' by the populace (or at least, no-one activively
whinges that such discussions are 'off topic').

I don't like the fact that homosexuals stole the name gay from all
the gay people in the world.

I don't think it was 'stolen' - the secondary homosexual meaning (and yes,
the association between 'gay' and 'homosexual' has been there for quite some
time) slowly became to understood by the majority of the English speaking
population as the primary meaning of the word. This happens all the time to
words, thats part of the evolution of language. Those who want to draw aline
in the sand and say "this is the correct use of the word and none cshal
change this meaning" don't understand how languages change over time. We
aren't, after all, using the same language that Shakespeare wrote or spoke,
he wans't using the language Chaucer did, and Chaucer didn't use the
language Beowolf was written in.

I'm uncomfortable with people who say I
can be Quaker and yet make up my own rules as to what that means. It
goes with the territory of being an absolutist that I think things
have a right way
to be, and that they can't make up that right way as they go along.

I am not an absolutist... :-)

I like evolving language, its fun. Although one of the traits of getting
older, I have found, is the increasing dislike for change, particularly
language. When a kid says "that is so *sick*" or "that is so *gay*" I really
have no idea whether the thing in question was good or bad or something else
entirely. Now they had said of the thing "its choice" or "gross" I would
grok their meaning sraight away, but "choice" is not the word of choice
these days.

Yowie

--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On topic or off topic (was Re: The cost of Mental Health)
    ... considered by the current audience to build and/or consolodate the ... The responses to posts are an accurate measure: ... I don't like the fact that homosexuals stole the name gay from all the gay ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: We Reap What We Sow...
    ... had one purpose, to make this place as absolutely miserable as possible. ... Because most of their posts were responses to folks who just can't seem to ... They will be left to their little circle jerk when they have lost their audience. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: i am looking for someone to teach me about pyrotechnics privately in my general aria
    ... "anything goes" where language is concerned then so be it. ... I'm sorry of the straight talk in my two preceeding posts offended you ... Plant were never resolved within the very polite and gentile Kodak ... Raytheon falls outside of my bandwidth and my sense of ordinary decency ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
  • Re: Mystery: static variables & performance
    ... >> responses to their questions. ... that C is a very versatile and pervasive language. ... about topicality, CLC actually does a favor to off-topic posters. ... there might be issues as to how his compiler is compiling the ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... gets into with me will quickly evolve into an argument and I will win ... > I've not been following your posts, ... > You claimed to detect bullshit in Jim's ... >> language as we think we know it has failed ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading