[MD] 'WT': noise-distinction

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Dan, all,



> Dan:
> Skimming? Skimming works fine, but you seem to be vbeing either
> deliberately obtuse or misunderstanding what I am saying on a
> fundamental level. Say I log onto my email account in the morning and
> i have maybe 15 minutes before I leave on my business for the day. I
> have 35 emails from moq.discuss.
> 
> I have to open each one. And of those 35, maybe 30 of them are either
> one-line bullshit or links to u-tube or some other nonsense. WTF. And
> maybe I see something interesting in one of the other 5 but now all
> the time I have alloted is wasted opening emails that are basically
> spam. I have no way of knowing that though, until I actually open
> them.
> 
> You may have all day to play, but I don't, and I am guessing many of
> us do not have that kind of time. That, my friend, is noise. Pure and
> simple. And skimming does me no good. Do you see what I mean now?
> 

[Tim]
this is why I have suggested a designation in the thread along the lines
of 'highly concentrated'.  You can rest assured that I might never
involve myself in such threads - I might too, but I think I would know
that I am noisy and confine myself to a mirror 'low concentration'
thread.

I think you would find that noisy people have enough respect for
non-noisy people to grant them such distinction without any formal
constraints.

in fact, from now on - if it is okay with Horse - any (unless...) thread
I start will carry this distinction.  Since I am noisy I will
distinguish noise rather than high concentration.  I will do so with
'WT' (when I was in high-school we said that with sort of an affective
accent doubleYehhh-Teeee: for 'white-trash').  at least I will see how
this goes - with Horse's tolerance of course.

respectfully,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow