<OT> Re: Explain to me again why Unity is so great...

[Amedee Van Gasse]

*quote intentionally left intact*

On Sun, May 1, 2011 20:13, Ric Moore wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 21:57 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
>> On 04/27/2011 01:50 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:35 +0200, Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
>>>> On Wed, April 27, 2011 18:51, Ric Moore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess a filter on OT alone would do as a filter.
>>>>
>>>> What about this thread:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject:  	F-SPOT problems From:  	"Kipton Moravec"
>>>> <kip at kdream.com> Date:  	Sat, September 11, 2010 22:03
>>>
>>> Heh, we need a better "maker's mark" to filter on. On the old Caldera
>>>  list we used <TID> (thread is deteriorating) quite successfully. Mad
>>>
>> Dog
>>> would post his latest shenanigans, along with some of the Founding
>>> Fathers of Linux joining in. We had a real ~interesting~ list. People
>>>  that could afford the initial sticker shock of the price of a
>>> Caldera CD, grew the list into a personable place to hang out; for
>>> technical info, personal sharing and the mystical search for the
>>> "Right Thing".
>>>
>>> But anyone not using <TID> got called out quickly. Just like top
>> posting
>>> and the use of html. It proved very workable for some time, until Ray
>>>  Norda no longer ran things. Sadly, most jumped ship when it all
>> changed.
>>
>> Why not just let people use what's convenient for them and filter for
>> either one.  Just allow for [OT] and <OT> then have your filter set for
>>  <OT> OR [OT].  A simpler filter would be ?OT? if your filter allowed
>> for wildcards.
>
> As Alan pointed out,
     ^^^^
Alan didn't point out anything at all. :)

> OT pops up in a lot of other words and a filter would blow them off into
> the trash can. So, the filter would have to be specific and we'd need to
> agree on <OT> or [OT] for it to be simpler. ?OT? would catch a word like
> BOTS as well. I'd vote for <OT> as I just hold down the shift key with my
> little finger as I type it out.
> Ric