[MUD-Dev] Attributions vs brainstorming ( or, Z, DOWN FOR TH

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 26 Dec 97 at 20:02, Stephen Zepp wrote:
> 
> Had hoped that this list would be worthwhile, replacing the flame-happy
> and braggards of the newsgroups, and be a forum for intellectual, advanced
> and in some case heated debate.  Instead, I find that I'm told: " What I'd
> actually recommend is that you just watch the discussion for a while, and
> see the formats and patterns we tend to use, as is recommended in the
> welcome message." [this quote cut from message written by J C Lawrence, in
> response to a post from Stephen Zepp].  In other words, we don't want to
> hear from you until you conform. Sorry, didn't know this was a Communist
> Revolution in progress...

You are confusing format with content.  For instance I've been warned
not to post 8-bit Mime, HTML formatted posts and textual file attachments.
While I would prefer to post everything in HTML wrapped in 8-bit Mime, 
nevertheless, I conform to the list dictator's wishes (sigh).  I have
relinquished my _right_ to proper _italics_ and conform as do the other
list serfs.   

As far as auto-including the "xxxx said:" that's a feature of many 
Unix mailers.  I've used MS-Mail, Internet Mailer, and currently Pegasus
Mail on Windows and they have this feature.   

> In addition, I find a few posters that drive the threads, mentioning "I do
> this, or this is how it should be done" [too minute to attribute], but
> never mentioning precisely what all these large words actually mean, or
> _discussing_ those advanced and seemingly interesting topics. 

Don't think you are alone in this regard. :)  I don't, didn't or might
never understand many of the topics I've read on this list.  When and 
if I thought that it might be important for me to understand, I've asked
for explanation.  Many of these topics, vocabulary, etc. are likely to
have been discussed earlier on the list and can be gleaned from the 
archives.  The FAQ thread is an attempt to remedy some of these gaps.  
And summaries of earlier threads are being worked on.  I'll point out 
again, that summarizing a thread from the archives is not easy without 
attributions or the proper software to chase down the pesky message ids.
    
> At least I
> could enjoy JA on the newsgroups flaming other because they were ( in his
> mind ) idiots, instead of being teased by how much better everyone else's
> code is ( not that it is, but that's what I hear from the list ).

Interesting point.  Did you ever notice how JA3 always attributes/quotes
the poster which he flames?  His format is clear and concise.

IMO, his content is moronic drivel though. :P

> Guess I'll go crawl back into my shell, and finish up those pesky ai
> nodes...

How do AI nodes work?  That's one topic I haven't a clue on.  The only
poster I'm aware of who seems to have a good handle on this is Nathan.
After exploring some of the AI/ANN web sites, I think I understand why
why there hasn't been much in-depth discussion of the topic.  

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato