Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [uk_jugglers] tv tonight

Expand Messages
  • Nick
    ... Did I just loose ten days? NP
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >My digital tv guide just came up with
      >Education: Caught in Time 6:30-07:00 wed 9th January BBC2
      >How mathmaticians have discovered previous unknown juggling patterns.

      Did I just loose ten days?

      NP
    • Mini Mansell
      Hi. just a reminder. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk_jugglers/chat a nice java chatroom just for the Uk jugglers room. 49 emails about the drug thing so
      Message 2 of 21 , Jan 24, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi.

        just a reminder.

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk_jugglers/chat

        a nice java chatroom just for the Uk jugglers room.

        49 emails about the drug thing so far.

        take it to chat please people


        www.minimansell.com
        www.jestersjuggling.co.uk



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Glyn Hanton" <glyn@...>
        To: <uk_jugglers@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:41 AM
        Subject: Re: [uk_jugglers] the drug thingy


        > > But I'm not talking about recreational drugs. I'm saying that if
        > performance enhancing drugs are cheating in sport then they damned well
        > ought to be in the performance arts.
        >
        > why ? I want to be entertained. I don't care what drugs someone takes to
        do
        > it. If I think they're really damaging themselves, I wont' be entertained.
        > I'll cringe.
        >
        > In sport it's about what a person can do on their own steam. Kind of
        > different. Although I probably wouldn't care if there was a secondary
        > olympics of what people could do on PE drugs.
        >
        > --
        > Glyn
        > Loaded Dice Design and Media
        > http://www.loadeddice.co.uk/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk_jugglers/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > uk_jugglers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Mark
        ... It s a nice idea, but there s more people read this off line than on I suspect. To say nothing of having to rely on crappy Java VMs and having a broswer
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 24, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          At 12:14 24/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:
          >Hi.
          >
          >just a reminder.
          >
          >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk_jugglers/chat
          >
          >a nice java chatroom just for the Uk jugglers room.
          >
          >49 emails about the drug thing so far.
          >
          >take it to chat please people

          It's a nice idea, but there's more people read this off line than on I
          suspect. To say nothing of having to rely on crappy Java VMs and having a
          broswer which can run the applet and all the rest.

          Perhaps we should have an off-topic mailing list as well :-)
        • Nigel
          ... Well now, the first mention of drugs that spawned this thread was in Naomi s message from 5.07pm on Thursday, and as of now the last I ve had was from Glyn
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 24, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In your last message, you said:

            > 49 emails about the drug thing so far.
            >
            > take it to chat please people
            Well now, the first mention of drugs that spawned this thread was in Naomi's
            message from 5.07pm on Thursday, and as of now the last I've had was from
            Glyn at 3.41am this morning ( why were you still up Glyn?? that's way past
            bedtime! :-) )

            I'm on a dial up connection at my house, and I for one am not going to spend
            something like 34 1/2 hours on the phone to a chat room in order to join in
            one discussion.. Indeed, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest* that
            that's exactly why groups like this exist, so that folk who don't spend
            their entire day sat in a chatroom can discuss stuff with other group
            members..

            So, Mini, why are you p'd off that your group's active and successful?

            N.

            *"not unreasonable to suggest" in that way that it's blinkin' obvious!
          • Mini Mansell
            Hi Nigel.and others that may have asked the same question about why i am bothered about high throughput.everytime the daily message total gets over around
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 24, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Nigel.

              and others that may have asked the same question about
              why i am bothered about high throughput.

              everytime the daily message total gets over around 20
              messages people unsubscribe.

              simple as that.


              for anyone who wants a chat that does not require a
              constant on connection.

              www.minimansell.com/ejachat.html

              its not java so that removes that problem
              it keeps chat messages for 72 hours. so that removes
              the dialup problem.





              On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:37:19 +0000, Nigel wrote:

              >
              > In your last message, you said:
              >
              > > 49 emails about the drug thing so far.
              > >
              > > take it to chat please people
              > Well now, the first mention of drugs that spawned this
              > thread was in Naomi's
              > message from 5.07pm on Thursday, and as of now the
              last
              > I've had was from
              > Glyn at 3.41am this morning ( why were you still up
              > Glyn?? that's way past
              > bedtime! :-) )
              >
              > I'm on a dial up connection at my house, and I for one
              > am not going to spend
              > something like 34 1/2 hours on the phone to a chat
              room
              > in order to join in
              > one discussion.. Indeed, I don't think it's
              > unreasonable to suggest* that
              > that's exactly why groups like this exist, so that
              folk
              > who don't spend
              > their entire day sat in a chatroom can discuss stuff
              > with other group
              > members..
              >
              > So, Mini, why are you p'd off that your group's active
              > and successful?
              >
              > N.
              >
              > *"not unreasonable to suggest" in that way that it's
              > blinkin' obvious!
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk_jugglers/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > uk_jugglers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

              ----------------------------------------
              Scanned by Emailfiltering.co.uk
            • Nigel
              ... And? Excuse me, but so what? I ll wager that those unsubbers were lurking prior to leaving, no offence meant to lurkers, I do it myself on some groups, but
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 24, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                In your last message, you said:

                > everytime the daily message total gets over around 20
                > messages people unsubscribe.
                >
                > simple as that.
                And?

                Excuse me, but so what?

                I'll wager that those unsubbers were lurking prior to leaving, no offence
                meant to lurkers, I do it myself on some groups, but the presence of a
                lurker makes no difference to a group really, does it?* And if they then
                decide that they're not interested in what a group has to say, well then
                they leave. Exercizing their freedom of choice to do so. Bye, seeya, thanx
                for dropping by...

                Sometimes when I go to the "my groups" page, I notice that I'm still a
                member of some very quiet groups. Perhaps if I got a message from one of
                those groups it'd prompt me to unsub like I've been meaning to do for ages
                ( that might be just me, but it's another possible reason for random
                leaving...)

                And that's just 2 of the kind possibilities, and completely bypasses the
                whole there's no need to read *every* email you get comment, if I get a
                message arrive at my inbox promising me a guaranteed method for increasing
                my penis size, I don't read it, just like if I get bored of a thread on an
                egroup, I don't read the messages with that subject line, similarly, if I
                get a message from Debbie Colgan, I know it's another copy of that virus,
                just like if I get a group message from x I figure it to be most likely
                tiresome, inconsistently argued tosh, or perhaps from y, that person who
                feels the need to reply to every group message without actually contributing
                anything to the debate**, and in those cases I may well choose not to read
                them ( or even go so far as to block their incoming mail if my group
                settings are individual emails, whatever, it's still not hard to scroll past
                them on digest mode ). Now if there's someone who unsubs rather than take
                personal responsibility for message censorship, well again I say "so what?"

                It's in the nature of discussion to wander off the original topic, it's in
                the nature of the loud ones on every egroup to post frequently regardless of
                how far the thread's drifted, tell in-jokes, extract the urine from each
                other etc... it all goes to create a sense of community. If you proscribe a
                group's activity too heavily then it simply stagnates and in that case
                you'll find way more people leaving...

                Anyway, I think this whole thread has gone off-topic, we should probably
                take it to the chat room ;-)))

                N.


                *Well, OK, strictly speaking it might make some difference if it took the
                amount of members of the group to below yahoo's threshold of worthy group
                status so prompting yahoo's auto "use your group or it'll be deleted for
                you" messages, but that's not really relevant here

                **so how paranoid are y'all feeling today then?
              • Richard Loxley
                ... I don t read it, just like if I get bored of a thread on an ... The problem with ignoring threads is the people who don t start new threads properly. They
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 24, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nigel wrote:
                  >
                  I don't read it, just like if I get bored of a thread on an
                  > egroup, I don't read the messages with that subject line

                  The problem with ignoring threads is the people who don't start
                  new threads properly. They reply to an existing thread and change
                  the subject line.

                  What they don't realise is that the email program inserts a hidden
                  header line that tells threaded readers to keep it within the old
                  thread rather than starting a new thread.

                  Mini is particularly guilty of this.

                  So if you start a new topic, *please* click New Message (or the
                  equivalent) in your mail program and send it to uk_jugglers, don't
                  just reply to another message.

                  Then we can safely ignore topics we're not interested in without
                  missing important stuff.

                  Cheers,

                  - Richard
                • Glyn Hanton
                  ... Alternatively, some people could could read the titles of message ...... ;v) -- Glyn Loaded Dice Design and Media http://www.loadeddice.co.uk/
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 25, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > So if you start a new topic, *please* click New Message (or the
                    > equivalent) in your mail program and send it to uk_jugglers, don't
                    > just reply to another message.

                    Alternatively, some people could could read the titles of message ...... ;v)

                    --
                    Glyn
                    Loaded Dice Design and Media
                    http://www.loadeddice.co.uk/
                  • Richard Loxley
                    ... I m not going to get sucked into this too deeply this time, it was well covered about a year ago when discussing the threading at jugglingdb. The whole
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 25, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Glyn Hanton wrote:
                      >
                      > > So if you start a new topic, *please* click New Message (or the
                      > > equivalent) in your mail program and send it to uk_jugglers, don't
                      > > just reply to another message.
                      >
                      > Alternatively, some people could could read the titles of message ...... ;v)

                      I'm not going to get sucked into this too deeply this time, it was
                      well covered about a year ago when discussing the threading at
                      jugglingdb.

                      The whole point about threading is that it allows your email client
                      to organise messages into order for you. This order is the semantic
                      order of messages, not alphabetical or (necessarily) chronological
                      order.

                      This discussion arose because of complaints about too much traffic
                      on uk_jugglers. It was suggested that people can ignore threads if
                      they are not interested in them. I made the point that you can't
                      ignore threads if people don't use threading properly.

                      Reading the titles of every message does not work if the problem is
                      that there are too many messages in the first place.

                      An extension of the argument is that if you didn't have a subject line
                      for a message it wouldn't matter because you could always read the
                      whole message to find out what it is about.

                      A good analogy is to think of threading as a subject line for an entire
                      conversation.


                      - Richard
                    • Nigel
                      ... Is there a greater proportion of pedants in the juggling community than in the population as a whole? ;-) My apologies, Richard. I am unaware of any
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 25, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In your last message, you said:

                        > This discussion arose because of complaints about too much traffic
                        > on uk_jugglers. It was suggested that people can ignore threads if
                        > they are not interested in them. I made the point that you can't
                        > ignore threads if people don't use threading properly.

                        Is there a greater proportion of pedants in the juggling community than in
                        the population as a whole? ;-)

                        My apologies, Richard. I am unaware of any specific technical meaning to the
                        term "thread" when referring to email conversations, in my original use of
                        the term in this discussion ( "just like if I get bored of a thread on an
                        egroup, I don't read the messages with that subject line" ), I used it as a
                        term to mean "bunch of messages sent as part of the same discussion, that's
                        why it gets "Re:" stuck on the beginning of the subject isn't it?", your
                        replies imply that there is more to it than that. Particularly, I was also
                        unaware that changing a subject line didn't change which thread it was on (
                        which strikes me as a particularly daft bit of programming... ), so yes,
                        I've been guilty of that too, but then I don't use threading, I use reading
                        the subject line, so in my defence ( and expand that out to include everyone
                        else who didn't know that the "same thread" thing happened till you just
                        told us ) I didn't need to know it...

                        So, yes, *if* you use threading with your email client, or you employ the
                        up/down thread options when reading messages at the yahoogroups page, then
                        trying to follow what's going on, or trying to spot the start of a new topic
                        when the "reply" option rather than the "new" option gets used is a hassle.

                        If, however, you sit here getting individual emails or daily digests without
                        applying any filtering, threading, sender or subject blocking or any of the
                        other things you _could_ do to incoming messages ( And, just getting them
                        regardless being by far the simplest, is probably the method employed by by
                        far the majority of email users ( we don't all work in computing and so know
                        how to use them "properly", most of us just own or get made to work on the
                        damn things...)), then whether or not the messages are correctly threaded
                        doesn't make a blind bit of difference to you, and so you get to do reading
                        subject lines.

                        So as in all the best email debates, we're all right in our own little
                        worlds, so remember folks, always start new subjects with a new message not
                        a reply, AND read the subject line, and we'll all be happy/just as miserable
                        as we always are/unsubbing cos there's too many messages/stopping for a brew
                        and a chat...

                        N.

                        PS, in the quote from the previous message, did y'all notice that Richard
                        said "complaints", plural? Now I'm assuming that he considers every act of
                        unsubbing from the list to be an individual complaint, otherwise there'd
                        just be Mini's message, which would make "complaint", singular. Now, what
                        was that I said about pedants? :-)
                      • Jonathan the Jester
                        Nigel Said: Is there a greater proportion of pedants in the juggling community than in the population as a whole? ;-) I reply: Yes Nigel. But myself, yourself
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 25, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Nigel Said:

                          Is there a greater proportion of pedants in the juggling community than in
                          the population as a whole? ;-)

                          I reply:

                          Yes Nigel. But myself, yourself and Glyn are the worst offenders.

                          Jonathan

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Richard Loxley
                          ... Yes, there s some hidden information that gets embeded in the email when you click on reply . E.g. my message had the line Message-ID:
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 25, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Nigel wrote:
                            >
                            > My apologies, Richard. I am unaware of any specific technical meaning to the
                            > term "thread" when referring to email conversations, ... I used it as a
                            > term to mean "bunch of messages sent as part of the same discussion, that's
                            > why it gets "Re:" stuck on the beginning of the subject isn't it?", your
                            > replies imply that there is more to it than that.

                            Yes, there's some hidden information that gets embeded in the email
                            when you click on 'reply'.

                            E.g. my message had the line

                            Message-ID: <4013ED8D.F3B6EB1@...>

                            inserted in it, and your message has the line

                            In-Reply-To: <4013ED8D.F3B6EB1@...>

                            in it. These are normally hidden unless you select 'view source' or
                            'view all headers' or similar.

                            Email/news clients (and most web interfaces to email groups) use that
                            to decide how to organise messages, not the subject line.

                            I was just trying to bring to a wider audience that 'Reply', really
                            does mean reply, not "send a new email to the same person".


                            - Richard
                          • paul.seward@bristol.ac.uk
                            --On 25 January 2004 05:10 +0000 Richard Loxley ... Yup, and it s been irritating me for weeks, I m glad I wasn t the only one that
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 26, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --On 25 January 2004 05:10 +0000 Richard Loxley <juggle@...>
                              wrote:

                              > The problem with ignoring threads is the people who don't start
                              > new threads properly. They reply to an existing thread and change
                              > the subject line.
                              ...
                              > Mini is particularly guilty of this.

                              Yup, and it's been irritating me for weeks, I'm glad I wasn't the
                              only one that noticed... See http://www.lpbk.net/misc/UKJ_threading.gif
                              for an illustration of why it's confusing.

                              So I would reitterate Richards plea and say *please* mini (and
                              the others that do it) if you're starting a new topic, send
                              a new email, if you're replying to something that someone has
                              said, use the reply button.

                              It'd also be helpful if people would stop top posting, and learn
                              to quote replys properly. It makes things harder to read, and as
                              such you're less likely to have it read, by me at least... (Hence
                              my lack of recent replies to Jonathan the Jester who - apparently -
                              is being quite amusing, but being misinterpreted by many as obnoxious.
                              I wouldn't know, i find his top posting requires more effort to
                              read so I've started ignoring him.)

                              Re: chatting / unsubscription rates...

                              We've had this discussion many many times, and it generally comes
                              down to:

                              Mini - wants an announcement based group to share details of potential
                              gigs and conventions which thousands of people subscribe to but noone
                              ever posts.

                              Frequent posters - want the same as mini, but with the option to
                              discuss the points raised and respond to them

                              Not so frequent posters - don't seem too upset with the situation
                              otherwise they'd complain...

                              Those that unsubscribe when it gest busy - Well, they probably only
                              signed up because their friends said they aught to and weren't
                              all that interested anyway.

                              I don't see that anything has changed this time round, so I don't
                              see the point in dragging it all up again.

                              If you want general chat, use a chatroom. If you want to respond
                              to a point raised on a discussion group, respond, discuss.

                              If you want to run an announcement style mailing list, with no
                              scope for discussion of points that get raised, make it moderated
                              and stop whinging about it.

                              At 46 posts since I last looked on Friday, this is actually one
                              of the quieter groups I follow.

                              -Paul
                              Off to reinvent a wheel or something productive like that.
                            • dan cox
                              _jugglers] Threading (was Re: Chatting) Richard Loxley Not so frequent posters - don t seem too upset with the situation
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 26, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                _jugglers] Threading (was Re: Chatting)
                                Richard Loxley <juggle@...>

                                <snip>
                                Not so frequent posters - don't seem too upset with the situation otherwise they'd complain...
                                <snip>
                                I don't have a problem with how the group's run

                                yours A. not so frequent poster

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Nigel
                                In the interests of trying to get us all on board with this ( and to educate the ignorant Nigel so he can make an effort to do it proper ), here s a few
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 26, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In the interests of trying to get us all on board with this ( and to educate
                                  the ignorant Nigel so he can make an effort to do it proper ), here's a few
                                  questions I've still got on this issue...

                                  OK, so what would you reckon was the correct threading of going off on a
                                  tangent from the original based on one remark in the middle of a post? Is it
                                  a new message thing, is it a reply with the subject changed in the manner of
                                  the one on this message, a reply with the subject intact or something
                                  completely different?

                                  If I get the daily digest, how do I keep my reply in a thread?
                                  ( I asked Richard this off-list just now as I thought it didn't really need
                                  broadcasting to everyone, but since it's still relevant to ongoing
                                  discussions... See, I am trying to cut down on list traffic, don't go, if
                                  you unsub now you'll never find out about.....)

                                  And finally, let's use an example that could easily be real... A list
                                  member, let's call him Jonathan, posts a message in which he claims that his
                                  costume and/or moniker contextualises his actions and comments such that his
                                  audience have a suitable frame of reference for his intent, thus preventing
                                  their violent reaction. Another list member, let's call this one Paul, makes
                                  reference to Jonathan's style of posting rather than the content of said
                                  missives in a completely different thread, but in doing so makes comments
                                  pertinent to a third list member's ( let's call this one Nigel, shall we? )
                                  reply... So, Nigel wishes to reply to Jonathan, but include content from
                                  Paul's message as illustrative of his point, how does Nigel go about fitting
                                  this one into a thread?

                                  Actually, I do have another question, but it's completely off topic.. I got
                                  a spam this morning with the subject line "Nasty Paris Hilton - She Takes it
                                  Up Their Ass!" (sic) Isn't it the wrong time of year for christian nativity?
                                  It's the only story I can think of including a hotel and a donkey...

                                  Cheers folks! Sorry unsubbers! sorry Mini!

                                  N.
                                • tlmbvoid
                                  ... What is top posting, please? Void ............. Err... if i just did it,... sorry.... Any what are replys ?
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jan 26, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In uk_jugglers@yahoogroups.com, paul.seward@b... wrote:

                                    > It'd also be helpful if people would stop top posting, and learn
                                    > to quote replys properly.

                                    What is top posting, please?

                                    Void
                                    .............
                                    Err... if i just did it,... sorry....




                                    Any what are "replys"?
                                  • mike_j_armstrong
                                    This is. Annoying isn t it? ... Oh the irony, Mr Grumpy Grammar Policeman [1] misspelling a word when correcting someone else. -Mike [1] Not that I disapprove
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jan 26, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      This is. Annoying isn't it?

                                      --- In uk_jugglers@yahoogroups.com, "tlmbvoid" <h@j...> wrote:
                                      > --- In uk_jugglers@yahoogroups.com, paul.seward@b... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > It'd also be helpful if people would stop top posting, and learn
                                      > > to quote replys properly.
                                      >
                                      > What is top posting, please?

                                      >Any what are "replys"?

                                      Oh the irony, Mr Grumpy Grammar Policeman [1] misspelling a word when
                                      correcting someone else.

                                      -Mike

                                      [1] Not that I disapprove of the Grammar Police mind you.
                                    • James Grime
                                      Not particularly.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jan 27, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Not particularly.

                                        --- In uk_jugglers@yahoogroups.com, "mike_j_armstrong"
                                        <mike_j_armstrong@y...> wrote:
                                        > This is. Annoying isn't it?
                                        >
                                        > > What is top posting, please?
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.