Print

Print


Hallo!

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:44:56 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

> [...]
> 
> I have often wished YAEPTs and spelling reformers had their own lists 
> (Surely such lists must exist?), but .......

There are certainly mailing lists for the topic of English spelling reform
(though I know none - but I never looked because that thing doesn't interest
me shite); however, I'd guess they are at least as flame-laden as AUXLANG.
It is such a similar game.

> ==================================================
> 
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> [snip]
>  >
>  > Off-topic discussions have always been part of Conlang.  That's no
>  > problem, I think, as they can be filtered.  My own part of the game
>  > will be to remind posters to use the topic tags needed for filtering.
> 
> Yes, I think banning all off-topic threads would be against the spirit 
> of the list (even tho I find some threads tedious).

True; especially given the fact that the line between on-topic and off-topic
is difficult to draw.

>  > We have the USAGE: tag explicitly for threads about English and other
>  > chatty language stuff.  And those are about language(!), so strictly
>  > speaking, they're not even off-topic (e.g. like Star Trek -- which, I
>  > stress, is also not at all banned if properly CHAT: marked).
> 
> Yep - a greater use of tags would help.

Amen.  Tags; changes of subject lines; reconsidering list-worthyness before
sending it.
 
>  > Furthermore, auxlang discussions have never been banned here.  What is
>  > banned are flame wars.
> 
> Quite so - and those of us who have, for what ever reason, at some time 
> or other got involved with auxlangs know just how inflammatory the 
> auxlanging can be. Much the same could - but thankfully so far has not 
> on this list - happen with spelling reform: my reform is better than yours.

Amen.

> [snip]
>  > And we cannot ban topics that are boring to some people!  Just skip
>  > them.  But, yes!, remember to tell us about your conlangs
>  > throughts, too.

Yes.  There is much stuff in the list I find personally uninteresting
despite being perfectly on-topic.

> I agree - but when I trash most of 164 mails I sort of get a bit 
> disappointed. I think "Er, not much conlanging here."

>  > We might want to more eagerly adjust the subject line, though.

And think twice whether it is really list-worthy.

> AMEN! AMEN!

Yep.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf