| |||||||||||||
Herrn Muller AgainHerrn Muller AgainPosted Mar 21, 2011 10:46 UTC (Mon) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206)Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
I re-iterate that, as soon as I hear the name Florian Muller, I know I am in for pages of long, boring and obscure comments, of the he said, she said variety.
I am sorry, it is about as interesting as two 7 year olds arguing in the school playground with out the other outcome, It will all be contrived self serving FUD.
I would normally be the first to defend freedom of speach but I for one have had more than a lifetimes worth of Muller's boring, rebarbative CRUD!
(Log in to post comments)
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 21, 2011 10:49 UTC (Mon) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
That's what's comment filtering for I guess.
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:02 UTC (Mon) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
We shouldn't need to filter comments Muller should have more common sense and politeness NOT to do this FM please STFU
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:07 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
@brianomahoney, you should re-read your own comment above with a derogatory four-letter word etc. and then ask yourself whether your "common sense and politeness" live up to your own standards.
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 21, 2011 12:38 UTC (Mon) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
FlorianMueller,
At the expense of doing what you do, always trying to have the last word, that STFU is not normally considered a _bad_ word.
Your arguements as uniformly tendentious, often wrong, _but_ always boring and your need to have the last word is a real pain.
But I have hammered this one to death, hope you get the picture.
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 21, 2011 12:45 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Interesting. STFU is above board for someone who demands politeness. How about CRUD, which you also used (and capitalized)?
Finally, in many cases people ask me questions and I answer them. I don't know what would be preferable -- ignoring or answering. In other cases I see misquotes, misinterpretations or misconceptions that relate to what I say. So I set the record straight in many (not all) of those cases.
You still haven't presented a good reason for not using filtering.
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 22, 2011 5:44 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Finally, in many cases people ask me questions and I answer them.And in many cases you ignore the question or divert the answer away with supposition and innuendo. Here's the question you keep ignoring: Exactly what is your motivation in this? It's been asked several times in different ways and you've ignored the question each time. You've attempted to stir up this tempest in a teapot and have yet to explain why this is so important that you feel the need to delve into legal examinations that you clearly don't understand and you continue to make statements about implied legal liability but have yet to cite single legal precedent in any jurisdiction. The worst part is this is the second "legal problem" with android you've attempted to expose and had it blow up as a non issue but only after it spread widely. The only logical conclusion, baring your own admission, is that you are spreading FUD for a reason that you won't reveal. The only reasons I can think of aren't very flattering to you, I doubt I'm alone in that.
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 21, 2011 19:09 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
brianomahoney, RTFM :-)
Herrn Muller Againn Tzafrir Posted Mar 22, 2011 16:17 UTC (Tue) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
Tzafrir, I am sorry, I dont know of a manual which would contain str reasons for Florian spreading FUD. Do you?
Herrn Muller Againn Tzafrir Posted Mar 23, 2011 23:32 UTC (Wed) by baldridgeec (guest, #55283) [Link]
Perhaps there should be an entry in missing(7) :)
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 31, 2011 15:43 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Don't waste time complaining about LWN's poor editorial choices - vote with your wallet and stop subscribing. It's becoming increasingly clear recently (the last couple of years or so) that LWN is not able to apply the sort of editorial control needed to keep the comments section useful, preferring instead to act as a forum for he said/she said argumentation as found on Slashdot. Maybe LWN should go back to running a "letters to the editor" section, and remove comments completely?
Herrn Muller Again Posted Mar 31, 2011 16:15 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
But LWN doesn't implement editorial control over comments at all, only the articles. If you find only the article useful, and not the comments, it's surely rather easy to avoid reading the comments.
I, for one, find the comments overall quite interesting and useful, although there are certainly some particular topics for which they are less so.
Herrn Muller Again Posted Apr 1, 2011 10:55 UTC (Fri) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] I found the articles and the letters to the editor useful - the clarifications and expansions in letters to the editor were adding value. When comments were introduced, they also added value; the people who were writing the letters to the editor shifted to writing comments. Over time, people providing intelligent comments have been drowned out in favour of personal attacks and rants; as a nice side effect, you've ensured that I cannot safely send a Subscriber Link to my managers, because I will get pulled up on spending work time on a site that's so poorly managed if the comments happen to degenerate - and there's no way to predict which articles will do that. I don't know what the solution is - if I did, I'd be e-mailing LWN with it again; I do know that the shift in SNR on LWN has meant I no longer find it worthwhile paying for access, and that comments that basically boil down to "guys, the SNR is low" don't help improve it. I can only hope that a gradual loss of income will convince Corbet et al to find a way to improve it.
»Managing« comments? Posted Apr 1, 2011 11:21 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] I for one would much rather see Jon and his colleagues spend their time on producing quality editorial content than on policing comments. Presumably, people are here for the original content rather than the comments. Nobody is forced to read the comments, anyway, and there's even a way to get rid of the more obnoxious commenters. I suppose if there is to be some sort of »management« of comments it will have to be »crowd-sourced« so as to not take time away from our esteemed journalists – this seems to call for a Slashdot-type up/downvoting system with a user-customisable threshold (so people who are here for the personal attacks and he-said-she-said can still get it if they want). Voting – or the use of this system altogether – could even be restricted to paying subscribers to make the subscriptions more attractive. Other than that, it is up to us (the readership) to do our thing for comment quality, by posting considered and courteous comments and deliberately not engaging in flame wars with obvious trolls.
»Managing« comments? Posted Apr 1, 2011 15:39 UTC (Fri) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] I used to pay for the project leader level of subscription, in large part so that when an article relevant to my company appeared, I could send my management a link to it and not feel guilty. I can't stop my management looking at the comments - if you're not logged in (they don't even have accounts here), you have no comment filtering at all. So, I'm afraid that those commenters who treat LWN's comments section as a place for personal attacks (I at least work somewhere where robust technical argument is understood) have destroyed my reason for paying for the site. A technical fix on LWN's part would be to provide me with a way of sending comments-free links, or links with my comment filtering applied (maybe something to offer for project leaders); then, at least, I could send my management links to interesting articles, knowing that they won't latch onto the flamewar in the comments section and chastise me.
|
|||||||||||||