BS topics (was: Agent Provocateur)

[Guest guest]

" wrote:

Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted from my post

are you

saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know. If I'm

posting too

much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

> Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

> This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

>

> Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted

from my post are you

> saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know.

If I'm posting too

> much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

I am hardly one to criticise on number or topicality of postings. At

present there is no limit on the number or nature of postings, except

obvious spam to vote for pets or whatever and XA apologia is

obviously unwelcome.

Those concerned about volume can receive the digest or read off the

web and skim over posts that dont interest them.

Posting on 12-step-questioners is almost nil, so folks who want less

mail could go thee and use that, or 12-step-survivors here on yahoo,

which is inactive but could be revived if folks want (might be an

idea to check listowner is still around tho).

P.

P.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

> This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

>

> Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted

from my post are you

> saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know.

If I'm posting too

> much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

I am hardly one to criticise on number or topicality of postings. At

present there is no limit on the number or nature of postings, except

obvious spam to vote for pets or whatever and XA apologia is

obviously unwelcome.

Those concerned about volume can receive the digest or read off the

web and skim over posts that dont interest them.

Posting on 12-step-questioners is almost nil, so folks who want less

mail could go thee and use that, or 12-step-survivors here on yahoo,

which is inactive but could be revived if folks want (might be an

idea to check listowner is still around tho).

P.

P.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

> This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

>

> Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted

from my post are you

> saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know.

If I'm posting too

> much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

I am hardly one to criticise on number or topicality of postings. At

present there is no limit on the number or nature of postings, except

obvious spam to vote for pets or whatever and XA apologia is

obviously unwelcome.

Those concerned about volume can receive the digest or read off the

web and skim over posts that dont interest them.

Posting on 12-step-questioners is almost nil, so folks who want less

mail could go thee and use that, or 12-step-survivors here on yahoo,

which is inactive but could be revived if folks want (might be an

idea to check listowner is still around tho).

P.

P.

P.

[Guest guest]

At 12:05 AM 8/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

> " wrote:

>Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

>This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

>

>Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted from my

>post are you

>saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know. If I'm

>posting too

>much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

No, not at all.

I think meant that an agent provocateur may be stirring up

traffic on off-topic stuff. I've had similar thoughts myself sometimes,

on particularly bad days, when I wade through a few hundred

posts and see that only maybe a dozen are actually about being

12-step free. :-\

I don't really think that's true, though. I think we're just an

opinionated and argumentive bunch of people. It'd take a

really brilliant troll to focus on encouraging thread drift rather

than on arguing about steppism.

[Guest guest]

At 12:05 AM 8/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

> " wrote:

>Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

>This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

>

>Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted from my

>post are you

>saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know. If I'm

>posting too

>much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

No, not at all.

I think meant that an agent provocateur may be stirring up

traffic on off-topic stuff. I've had similar thoughts myself sometimes,

on particularly bad days, when I wade through a few hundred

posts and see that only maybe a dozen are actually about being

12-step free. :-\

I don't really think that's true, though. I think we're just an

opinionated and argumentive bunch of people. It'd take a

really brilliant troll to focus on encouraging thread drift rather

than on arguing about steppism.

[Guest guest]

At 12:05 AM 8/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

> " wrote:

>Yes, some AA zealot may have done just that.

>This list has too much volume on BS topics. "

>

>Are you saying that my post was a BS topic? And since you quoted from my

>post are you

>saying I post too much, and on irrelevant things? I need to know. If I'm

>posting too

>much and giving offense, please let me know. Pete? ?

No, not at all.

I think meant that an agent provocateur may be stirring up

traffic on off-topic stuff. I've had similar thoughts myself sometimes,

on particularly bad days, when I wade through a few hundred

posts and see that only maybe a dozen are actually about being

12-step free. :-\

I don't really think that's true, though. I think we're just an

opinionated and argumentive bunch of people. It'd take a

really brilliant troll to focus on encouraging thread drift rather

than on arguing about steppism.

[Guest guest]

> I don't really think that's true, though. I think we're just an

> opinionated and argumentive bunch of people. It'd take a

> really brilliant troll to focus on encouraging thread drift rather

> than on arguing about steppism.

IIRC someone asked why we kept talking about AA when the list is 12-

step-free... she was almost certainly AA, and you cant please

everybody!

P.

[Guest guest]

> I don't really think that's true, though. I think we're just an

> opinionated and argumentive bunch of people. It'd take a

> really brilliant troll to focus on encouraging thread drift rather

> than on arguing about steppism.

IIRC someone asked why we kept talking about AA when the list is 12-

step-free... she was almost certainly AA, and you cant please

everybody!

P.

[Guest guest]

At 08:32 PM 8/7/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

> > I don't really think that's true, though. I think we're just an

> > opinionated and argumentive bunch of people. It'd take a

> > really brilliant troll to focus on encouraging thread drift rather

> > than on arguing about steppism.

>

>IIRC someone asked why we kept talking about AA when the list is 12-

>step-free... she was almost certainly AA, and you cant please

>everybody!

Nah, that was just Jewel. I know her from SMART. She's a little

flaky in some ways, but she's definitely not AA.