Conference 7.286::digital

    .0 is an example of un-needed gibberish in notes.
    
    Ken

    .1 is an example of un-needed gibberish in notes.
    
    	Jim

    re .2
    
    Thank you.  I was about to say the same thing.
    

    Ratholes are endemic to notes files, though some files are more
    afflicted than others.  If the moderators are too diligent in keeping
    replies on-topic, that would tend to take the life out of noting.
    On the other hand, ratholes can go to ridiculous extremes.  I don't
    know if this is the case here, since I only sample this conference and
    I don't follow all the discussions.  (I make liberal use of the comma
    key.)
    
    Topics that are beyond the charter of the conference are much easier to
    spot, and apparently your mistake was having your rathole stick out
    like a sore thumb as a new topic.  (Insert icon for humor-impaired.)
    
    --Simon
    

    			... make that "humor challenged".

    make that "differently humored"...

rE: 1921.0                  DIGITAL NOTES RATHOLES                    4 replies
>do with Ken Olsen.  Where is the moderator who saw fit to remove my
>note form the Digital note.  At least it had something to do with
>Digital, not constant gibberish about nothing.

One of the inane inconsistencies about Digital's Notes files, is there
is very little, outside of basic Corporate Policy, Common Decency (which 
isn't as common as we'd like it to be) .. is the role of Moderator, and the
zeal (or lack of it that) which Moderators have in persuing and perusing
their charge (ie Notesfile).

Everyone who 'notes', need to recognize that most (if not all) Moderators are 
Volunteers who care about various aspects of our life within Digital, and
our life and interests outside of Digital.

Human frailty being what it is, dictates that there will be a  few 
inconsistencies in the way moderators 'enforce' the guidelines which they 
themselves set up (often), or in the case of 'helper' moderators, accept.

Yes, I am a moderator, not of this conference, but of some restricted
technical ones, a couple of public technical ones, and one employee
interest conference.

The continued existence of the base note seems to prove that not all 
notes, seemingly out-of-place, would be deleted. There needs always to
be room for responsible dissent, and contrary opinions.

Bob

Anybody who complains about ratholes and then opens a new note entitled 
"Digital Notes Ratholes" has a lot to learn about human nature and about the
way Notes work. 

There are no ratholes really, just new facets of a conversation.  This 
delights the Dionysians and disturbs the Apollonians.  This reaction is in 
the nature of both.

Dionysians think they themselves are free and that Apollonians are up tight.
Apollonians think that they themselves are purists and that Dionysians are
out of control.  

Or, as H.G. Wells put it:  "There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those
who think there are two kinds of people in the world and those who think there
are many more."

But that is all human nature. What about Notes?

What is really lacking is some escape from the limited constructs available 
for grouping information in Notes.  

We have the file itself.  "Here we discuss `The Way We Work' or `Ornithology'
or `Music'.  

Then there is the individual note.  "Here we discuss `Ratholes' or `Baltimore
Orioles' or `Johnny Winter'.

Finally there are the "tools".  Keywords, title search, date, author, etc.

That's it.  There's many a fruitful discussion of the different kinds of 
bird's nests or Edgar Winter's choice of synthesizer buried away in a note
that is *supposed* (by the Apollonians) to be about some other subject.  We
need the ability to arbitrarily branch off into ratholes if we want to, to 
retrospectively group notes according to some scheme unimagined when they 
were first entered, to search widely and efficiently according to criteria 
unrelated to the intentions of the person who started the file or the base 
noter.  And we need much better implementations of the tools we already have.

We have a lot of technology that does the same sort of thing:  mail, VTX, 
Bookreader, Notes, each with a huge pool of associated information.  Each of 
these tools works better for some people than for others, but none of them 
is quite satisfactory.  We need to be able to relate to these pools of 
information in ways that are meaningful to us, not to some Apollonian 
policeman who never ventures forth without the whistle between the teeth,
ready to tweet out a peremptory tweet every time some Dionysian strays from
the straight and narrow.  With better tools -- better understanding, really --
both the Apollonians and the Dionysians can get what they want out of 
electronic communication.

    
    "Just remember, the one who wins the rat race is still a rat."
    
    --Lily Tomlin
    

>that is *supposed* (by the Apollonians) to be about some other subject.  We
>need the ability to arbitrarily branch off into ratholes if we want to, to 

How about another decimal level?  The mainstream notes would be numbered 
1921.0, 1921.1, 1921.2..., and the rathole notes could be 1921.1.1, 
1921.1.2....  Then, you could define a key for NEXT UNSEEN/RATHOLE and those 
wishing to follow the ratholes could do so, but anyone wishing to avoid all 
ratholes would just use NEXT UNSEEN.

This would put the burden of classification on the noter... they would have to
use either a REPLY or a REPLY/RATHOLE command.

    One man's rathole is another man's goldmine.

    This whole subject is a goldmine....
    

    All of the past dozen notes have just emphasized one frequently ignored
    fact.  Conversations are not linear but NOTES is.  That's why products
    like HyperCard have a market.  You can start a conversation with one
    comment made to two people on different occasions and get different
    threads.  Notes just can't represent all of the threads of
    conversation.  And if somebody comes up with a product (like HyperCard)
    that can, it may be too complex for many people.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

    Rats are not people, there're rats...

are you talking about ratus ratus or ratus humanus ?

re .17

Or Ratus Millus

    Since the "offending" note was deleted I assume I cannot read what was 
    removed, so now I'm twice as curious to know what the note was and why 
    it was removed. Will the moderator answer .0 ?.
    
    
     

    is there a genus and species type definition for "Ratus Millus"??

There are 2 main reasons why a note gets deleted by a moderator, (other than
for a P&P violation):

	1)  The note has nothing to do with the charter of the conference
	    which is to discuss the way we work at Digital.

	2)  The topic would be better served in one of the geographic specific
	    conferences, for example, the New Hampshire or Mass. conference.

Most topics I delete fall into one or both of the above categories.


Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

Speaking of rats....


<Q> Why are more and more universities using lawyers in experiments as opposed
to white rats?

<A> Three reasons...  1) There are more Lawyers than rats... 2) Grad students 
tend not to get as attached to the lawyers and 3) There are a few things
that even rats won't do...

    Quick make a copy of .-1.  It can't last long.  It's not PC.

    ref .-1

>    <<< Note 1921.23 by SSDEVO::EGGERS "Anybody can fly with an engine." >>>
>    Quick make a copy of .-1.  It can't last long.  It's not PC.

    i think that note is a pc, why do you think it is not a pc? i dont see
    anything un-pc about it at all? it seems all pc's to me?

    i think that your note is the one not a pc because it is not a pc to say 
    that another note is not a pc, a pc note does not say that another note is 
    not a pc, unless that note that is being claimed to be not a pc has 
    claimed that another, unrelated note, was not a pc when in fact it was
    a pc note , but i dont see .22 note saying that another note was not a pc 
    when that note was actually was a pc, do you? 
    offcourse not !

    case closed. your note is not a pc, but mine is a pc, because your note
    said that another note was not a pc when it actually was a pc, while
    mine says that another note is not a pc when it is true is not a
    pc, and it is not un-pc to say that another un-pc note is not a pc.

    thank you,
    /nasser

    ref. -1
    
    I think you're ratholing -.2's comment on PC about the rathole from -.3
    about lawyers from the note on rat holes .  I really wish we could keep
    from rat holing this note on rat holes with all of this PC stuff. 
    Let's stick to the point ... what is the point anyway????  Oh well, I
    guess I can go back to sleep now ...zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ
     

    My original note, I discussed the MAIL note file available.  With the
    huge amount of mail that is generated throughout the company, A mail
    program office was put in place to help employees who may have
    questions on how to do company mailing the most cost effective way.  We
    are looking for suggestions and we are ready to give answers to any
    question regarding mailroom issues.
    
    I originally put the note in DIGITAL because I thought it was the most
    widely read and I would reach the most employees.
    
    I plan to go back to the EASYNET conference to try and stimulate
    interest to a very important issue facing employees who need the right
    answers before making decisions on how to effectivly use the mail.
    
    

    re.26   Seems reasonable to me. re - the rest in here. Have you ever
    had a note deleted that a moderator said didn't belong when you firmly
    beleived it did? While the Rodney King issue was going on I entered a
    note in the Digital diversity note about racisim and it was
    write-locked because the moderator didn't feel it belonged there. I was
    refered to the blacknotes or soapbox because racisim and the Digital
    diversity program are two totally unrelated topics. Huh? At first I
    wasn't sure if I was reading that corectly so I entered another note to
    the moderator. After going back and forth with notes I felt it wasn't
    worth it and realized that notes belong to the moderators to do with as
    they see fit - now that I understand this I can accept it. At first I
    took the same approach as .0 (identifying other notes that "didn't
    relate"), but then I said screw it, its not worth my time trying to
    enter a note in a valuing diversity note when obviously my notes wern't
    valued by the moderator. .0, I understand your plight and I can relate
    to it from my experience. To the rest who noted in here - when 
    problems arise in your group do you usually blame the problem on the
    person who uncovered it or see that person as the problem? No wonder
    our stocks are under 40 bucks a share..
    
                                      John