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