A tree to grow
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk
Fri Sep 1 18:17:06 CDT 2006
> Tony wrote....
> > To be honest, I didn't much care for the 10 year rule,
> In that case, I sure would have appreciated more input from you when the
> definition was being discussed. Was there any reason you didn't provide some
> help to come up with something better than the 10 year rule if you didn't
> care that much for it? Help from you would have been awesome! But I am glad
> to hear that yet another person finds the 10 year rule problematic.
Oh for %deity's sake.... There are 2 reasons why I didn't suggest an
1) As I've said at least twice, the original thread didn't 'register'
with me. Rememebr I'm one of the people who didn't even realise the 10
year rule was no more.
2) Even if I don't much care for something, it doesn't mean I can
necessarily come up with something better (for example, I don't much care
for Windwos, I don't think I could write a replacement).
> > I am seriously considering unsubscribing over this. Not because of the
> > noise on the list. Not because I have any particular love of the
> > 10-year-rule (or any other date-related rule). But because I now have no
> > idea what this list is actually supposed to be talking about. And there
> > seems little point in remaining on such a list.
> So your reason for unsubbing would be because you don't understand what this
> list is talking about? Sure, there's some argument about the finer details
I've had far too many problems in my life caused by ambiguous
definitions, criteria, and so on. Maybe it comes from spending too much
time working with devices that do have precisely-defined rules, but I
will admit to liking such rules. That's not to say I don't also enjoy
finding obscure borderline cases :-)
More seriously, you may think you know what a classic computer is. I may
think I know what one is. And most of the time we'll agree. But I am
woried about an almighty flamefest when you say something is off-topic
(as is your right as list owner), the poster insists the machine _is_ a
classic, and various members take sides. With no clear definition of
classic, that 'discussion' could run and run.
> and probably the definition needs tweaking. But I seriously doubt that
> people (and you) honestly don't know what this list is about. I'm sure I and
Oh, I know plenty of machines that _I_ think are classies. I think most
list members would agree with me in every case. But that's a far cry from
having a definition of classic computer.
More information about the cctech