Conversation
Notices
-
-
@arnebab My policy for group-posting rebuttals was posted a bit ago.
-
@teddks please discuss out of the group. You can wrap up the discussion afterwards and add a group tag then. You're one post from a block.
-
@teddks By not discussing in the group you make the others' in-group posts look silly. Otherwise you just look silly yourself.
-
@arnebab Wait, what? I only discuss in-group if the previous post was in-group.
-
@teddks That principle doesn't scale. If we all used it groups would be useless. A wrapup post can get people to read all http://is.gd/6CoYI
-
@teddks sorry for the phraselike answer. 140 chars aren't ideal for discussing more complex topics...
-
@arnebab I might start doing that for oog discussions, but I'm not going to deny myself the same forum my opponents have.
-
@teddks they are not opponents but discussion partners. And they look silly if they stay ingroup while you post oog. Just ask them to go oog
-
@arnebab That's irrelevant; in-group they get to broadcast their arguments and their views. I'm not going to deny myself that.
-
@teddks and wrap it up later. If they insist on staying ingroup, just post one ingroup request to come oog and let peer pressure do the rest
-
@teddks That means I have to block you when you post your next ingroup broadcast. You lose all readers that way.
-
@teddks they broadcast to people who aren't interested and will block them.
-
@teddks You do know that people can see the context with one click, do you?
-
@arnebab I don't see what you're implying - that I should depend on clickthroughs to have my arguments be heard?
-
@teddks Since you kept spamming the !ubuntu and !linux group and explicitely said you won't stop ( http://is.gd/6Cucx ) I blocked you.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the