response 25 of 95:

Mar 11 12:23 UTC 2004

"Mentally skipping people of no interest" is what I've generally
tried to do, and still do to a large extent.  Now I do filter a
couple of folks (a number of logins, but I think it's just two
distinct people).  I use Jon Zeeff's filtering program, augmented
by a couple of Picospan aliases that make it easy to turn on and
off.  (It's off for this item.)  Agora's much more pleasant now.

Easy-to-maintain filters for party and write have been around for a
long time.  I think it would be appropriate and technically feasible
to implement a similar one for bbs, such that all a user has to do is
list the logins they want to filter in their ".noread" file, and have
one command available to turn the filter on, another to turn if off.

Everybody has a right to speak.  Likewise, everybody has a right to
choose who they're going to listen to.

response 27 of 95:

Mar 11 14:09 UTC 2004

Using a computerised filter will make it too easy to include in your twist
list people who should be corrected, as well as incorrigible pains in the ass.

response 29 of 95:

Mar 11 14:50 UTC 2004

But how can you tell the difference, Jeff?

response 31 of 95:

Mar 11 14:54 UTC 2004

Psst - Jeff - sarcastic comments encourage them.  That's what they live for.

response 33 of 95:

Mar 11 15:09 UTC 2004

It's way more interesting.

response 35 of 95:

Mar 11 17:10 UTC 2004

Personally, I dont use a twit filter. 

However, even as a board member, I dont think I have an obligation not 
to ignore certain users even if they are members. That might cost me 
some votes if I run for board again but I think I can live with that.

I think it would be nice if we could make it easier for newusers to set 
up twit filters. Maybe offer them access to someone else's twit list 
since, naturally, a newuser would have no way to know who is a twit. On 
the other hand, who knows which users a particular newuser would find 
annoying?

response 39 of 95:

Mar 12 03:16 UTC 2004

All I had to do was type 'ignore' to use Valerie's twit filter program.  Only
problem with it is I need to keep a list of twits and enter ALL of them each
time I run the program, instead of just adding new ones.  

response 41 of 95:

Mar 12 05:14 UTC 2004

however much you'll listen to me is debatable, because occassionally people
like to generalize and don me with the "m-netters are evil, period" cap.  but,
maybe a few will find this insightful.

it may come as no surprise that i find twit filters to be a pathetic escape
mechanism, reminiscent of drinking when you're depressed, or eating
uncountable pints of ice cream because somehow it drowns out your body's cry
for better eating habits.  it's a personal issue.  having just a pinch of
libertarianism in me, i'm inclined to say that everyone is entitled to
*actively* engage in acitivites that he/she see best fit for him/herself.

when soup posts dozens of items of worthless crap into serious and non-serious
conferences, what happens is that i strengthen my capaciyt to *deal*, not to
ignore.  part of this is that it exercises the part of my being which is the
capacity to *deal*.  another part of it is the anomoly of positive
contribution.  although statistically we find that soup has posted in a ratio
of, say 99:1 worthless:meaningful responses, we also find that those 1 in 99
responses are indeed meaningful, and are indeed a positive contribution
to...whatever, be it higher social thoughf, hobbyist computing, or some other
unexpected fork of mainstream zombie culture.  now, let's assume that *all*
responses by soup have been filtered.  no exceptions.  all are filtered, with
extreme prejudice.  who loses out?  you ca argue that soup loses out because
of some crack-ass crying wolf analogy.  or, you could argue that the active
filterer has missed out, because he/she missed said positive contribution.
soup posted in the unix conference on m-net about 100 lines of instructions,
without CAPS, for how to install freebsd via ppp over a null modem cable from
win95 (ftp install).  why on earth would such a villain post such a positive
contribution to hobbyist computing?  it's because he's human, and our culture
encouragees poitive contribution.  i think it's also safe to assume that most
people who've found small bbses in michigan are self-motivated and willing
to work towards *some* goal, be it a positive contribution or simply
indulgence in pranks.  what's the end result?  you can quite easily deal with
a shot-lived period of what you might deem textual vulgarity (or even just
graffiti), or, you can accept this as the current state of north america's
youth and expect, as most mature adults do, that this period of graffiti is
short-lived, and the only possible outcome is that you've dismissed the
positive contributions that the poster has made to a community in exchange
for short-lived relief from what is ultimately just a disagreement in taste.

that said, we resume where i left off with entitlement of the individual to
engage with discretion in acts that he/she sees most suite to his/her own
taste.  i can't possibly condemn, through whatever dialogue we engage in,
one's choice to filter the material that he/she reads in any form.  i can,
however, condemn a community's willingness to offer blind, total filtering
of a contributor's offerings, be they deemed meaningless, or even vulgar in
their frequency, as a default for all inquisitors who find themselves logged
on to grex, pondering their potential place as contributors to, or even
just passive admirers of, a system which welcomes speech in so many forms.

response 43 of 95:

Mar 12 05:17 UTC 2004

Yes.

response 45 of 95:

Mar 12 05:43 UTC 2004

he does.  and he's also a bad example of positive contribution.

response 47 of 95:

Mar 12 06:27 UTC 2004

I'm a VERY positive contribution, but I'm afraid many of my most avid readers
don't realise it's all part of a litarary experiment of grand proportions.