low flame: Re: Evaluating opinions ==>> bottom post

[Tony Freehauf]

On Thursday 03 June 2004 19:48, Bob Stockler wrote:
> Top Post . . .
>
> It's easy (at least on my email reader) just to type D
> and go on to the next message.  If it's not of interest,
> D is available again.
>
> Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
>
> Bob
>
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:25:57PM -0500, Ray Scheel wrote:
> | Would it be possible to set up a separate list called
> | flame-fpusers at lists.celestial.com so this list could at least maintain an
> | illusion of being about *professional* issues encountered by filePro
> | users and developers?
> |
> | I can vouch that the conduct I see here on a regular basis has led
> | several fP developers I know to only subscribe to the list long enough to
> | get a question answered before unsubscribing again in an effort to avoid
> | having to sift through the weekly "let's flame each other" threads, and
> | over the past few weeks I've noticed an increase in the number of threads
> | that drift into playground arguments to the point I'm about ready to do
> | the same thing.
> |
> | Likewise, if someone is subscribing to evaluate the credibility of fP's
> | claims as being a credible contender in today's IT world, the exchanges
> | that flare up here on a weekly basis would almost certainly scare them
> | off.  How many of you would invest in a new-to-you technology who's main
> | end users spent about 1/4 of their time calling each other names and
> | trying to one-up each other?
> |
> | Frankly, I can't see how people who are heavily tied to fP as their
> | primary means of financial support find it productive to regularly
> | nitpick and flame each other over clear and long-standing issues that are
> | holding this platform back.  About the only regular poster to this list
> | with a reason to take personal offense to a criticism of fP's features is
> | Ken, yet AFAICT, he never starts the flame sessions.
> |
> | I've still got many years of maintaining fP applications ahead of me, and
> | this is one of the few resources available (and the only place to get a
> | quick suggestion for workarounds to the outstanding problems and weird
> | behaviors).  I've unsubbed before to avoid this during a time where I
> | worked with fP less than I have been lately, but I'm about ready to again
> | even though an answer I got here recently saved me another day of
> | frustration and I frequently read things that clarify points I've long
> | been confused about.
> |
> | Ray Scheel               ray.scheel at wsdtx.org
> | Windham School District     Computer Services
> | Programmer                       936-291-5206
> | _______________________________________________
> | Filepro-list mailing list
> | Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> | http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list

i find all posting interesting. Sometimes I like the flames. Sometimes I 
don't. Flaming is part of a list. I do agree that flaming should be 
identified. This flame, i have identified,  as a low flame - cause it is for 
fun. 
Most flames should be coded Flame with the on occational  silly flame, low 
flame, blue flame, personal attack flame,  etc..... and then followed by a 
":".
I also believe the posting method should be noted on the subject line with a 
==>> the the type. The types I believe are:
top post
bottom post
anywhere post
no post - comment in the subject line
maybe there should be a posting method of fpprofessional

Old tony




-- 
**********************************
     YNOT SOFTWARE & PC Support
            Tony Freehauf
            841 Sivert Ave
         Wood Dale, Il 60191
         Office 630-274-2808
        tony at ynotsoftware.com
          Phone 800.677.9171
         Fax   866.871.6756
***********************************