[UA] Re: [UA] (OT)

[Matthew Rowan Norwood]

> The problem is the subjectivity of the criteria for what
> is on-topic and what is not.  I'm obviously willing to
> include a lot more within the realm of being on-topic than
> others are, so would be less likely to append (OT) to my
> messaes, whereas others would want me to put it on
> messages that seem to me clearly on-topic.
> 
> If you can establsh clear, objective criteria for what is
> on or off topic, then please do so.  I'm pretty certain
> that it would be impossible, but could be quite wrong.

I'm willing to be pretty lax with these guidelines. Eric Berg just
posted in defense of Ayn Rand with absolutely no UA reference, at all,
anywhere in the message. It's that shit that makes me want to
unsubscribe.

There are lots of borderline cases, but I think a good rule of thumb is:
if UA isn't mentioned _explicitly_ in your post, it should be marked
(OT). This means that if someone posts about the Nepal thing being a
proxy ritual, then you respond and give some details about the killing
that don't relate to its nature as a proxy ritual or otherwise mention
its UA-relevance, you mark it (OT). People who are interested in that
thread will read it; it will be archived right next to the other thread;
and those of us who get that kind of news elsewhere can filter it.

-Matt Norwood

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua