Google Groups + this list

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 12/25/2013 05:19 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 12/24/13 8:47 PM, rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Also,
>>> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important
>>> part.
>> Refresh my memory please.
> 
> Ugh, stop!  

Stop what?  The context you quote has nothing to do
with what you write below.

> We get it: you don't think Google Groups is bad.  

That's not accurate.  I would never characterize GG
with such simplistic terms as "good" or "bad".

> Or you 
> think it can be made to work,

My own posts demonstrate that.  You don't agree?  Why
would you question that I think so?

> or something.  

"or something"?  In other words you *don't* get it.

> That's fine.  But you are 
> going to have to reason a little more subtly than, "all software has bugs."

I have tried to, both in the previous posts and in posts 
going back any months.  Either I have failed to make myself 
clear or (more likely since you (et.al.) consistently cut 
out context and fail to respond directly to what I wrote) 
you choose not to understand.

> As Chris has pointed out, the bugs in Google Groups affect every reader 
> of the list.  Bugs in other software don't, at least not to the same extent.

I understand that.  But (a hypothetical) *I* have to make 
a tradeoff between the features/misfeatures of GG vs TB 
or any other software.  You assume that the negative value 
you assign to GG apply to me.  Wrong.  While I understand 
(for example) that the FU'd quoting is annoying, I don't 
see why you can't just ignore it or skip reading my entire 
post if necessary.  (The non-hypothetical I actually almost 
never reads quoted stuff anyway -- I only do so rarely when
my memory and the main message leaving me unclear about 
something -- and even then it is often easier to go back 
to the OP given the spotty quality of quote trimming, as 
you demonstrate.)
 
And (as I pointed out, multiple times) you fail to evaluate 
as positively as (hypothetical again) I do the benefits GG 
has for me.  (Evidence: Chris' erroneous insistence that 
subscribing to the email list is as easy as using GG.)  So 
my evaluation of the overall benefit/cost for GG relative 
to some other choice is still positive even though your 
evaluation is otherwise.  And I distrust your evaluation
anyway since I *know* (from personal experience that GG 
is easier to use for me than a mailing list) that part of 
your evaluation is wrong. 

What you are saying is that I should use *your* evaluation
of GG (and other options) in making my tradeoffs.  And you 
get very angry when I won't do what you tell me to.

Secondly, the above is a side issue.  Please go back and 
reread the posts in question.  The main point (which you and
Chris lost or did a good job misdirecting away from) is that 
Chris claimed (and you found reasonable to believe) that GG 
corrupts white space in posts.  I have not seen any such 
effect, Chris' explanations were all handwaving, and so 
pending something more convincing I will offer the alternate
explanation that it is just more unjustified disparagement 
of GG and that it constitutes evidence that much of this 
anti-GG sentiment is driven by a "Lord of the Flies" effect
rather than rationality.

> Rurpy, you seem to be willfully ignoring the aggravation people are 
> experiencing.  

"willfully ignoring"?  For someone portraying himself as
a voice of reason in this discuss that's a pretty sleezy
thing to say.  I'll point out I put a small but significant 
amount of work into a wiki page to try to help reduce the 
aggravation people are experiencing which is more than you
or Chris have done.

> And people who hate Google Groups: you seem to be 
> overlooking the fact that it's difficult for the users of Google Groups 
> to understand its flaws, or to see the effect it has on the list.

And in my opinion, overreacting to GG annoyances.  Despite 
claims to the contrary, reading GG posts *will not* make 
you go blind, and they *can* be easily skipped if too 
annoying.  And from comments posted here, there are people 
who find these incessant GG discussions (and frequent 
troll baiting) far more annoying than posts from GG.

> I'll repeat my proposal (for everyone):
> 
> 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups.  Politely suggest 
> alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have 
> already gotten help.
> 
> 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups.  When you call its 
> results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster. 
>   You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also 
> referring to the poster's words.
> 
> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups. 
>   It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.
> 
> Do you disagree?

OK I give up.  You never even bothered to read what you're
responding to.  I specifically wrote regarding the above,
immediately following where you wrote the above:

>> That all sounds fine [...]

When you want to reply to what I wrote rather than what 
you want to believe, we can restart this conversation.
(And no, I don't read your question as directed at 
"everyone" since you would have, given my response, 
specifically excluded me if you'd meant that.)