28 Mar
2006
28 Mar
'06
11:01 p.m.
> Richard wrote....
> > You mean we can't talk about Windows 95? Its vintage, baby.
To which I replied...
> Nope.
To which Richard replied...
Its 10 years old. I thought that was the requirement
for "on topic",
or are we going to get snooty about *which* 10 year old things we can
talk about?
Back up just a second here. You're saying anything which doesn't meet what
YOU THOUGHT the rule was, is snooty?
Apparently I need to be much more vocal in expressing the guidelines. Or
more specifically, I need to slap myself for not updating the list
charter/FAQ so that new people to the list just assume they know the scoop.
My bad, I have been remiss for too long!
The rule for on-topicness is NOT simply anything over 10 years. I'm sorry I
have not repeated this since some of the newer members joined the list, so
they assume anything over 10 years goes. That is not the case. There are
many things over 10 years that are not on topic. There are a few things less
than 10 years that ARE on topic. MS/DOS (hopefully not to excess) is
on-topic. Windows 3.1 is borderline, but a rare question here and there
isn't going to be a huge deal. Windows 95 and more recent incarnations? Not
even remotely on topic. This subject has been beat to death and most of the
old timers here know the guidelines and keep in line. Newer people don't
have the advantage of that history. We'll get there :)
Jay