Re: can someone please explain what this blog tagging this is all about?

hjr.pythian_at_gmail.com wrote:

>
> If you mean I don't pay for OraBlogs or OraNA, quite right. I don't.
> So that makes it OK for other people to vandalise it, does it?

Vandalism is your definition. Obviously not of the owner, nor of a part of the user community. Actually, you seem to be the only one being annoyed.

> It's not a service. It's someone's blog of blogs. They take each
> blog's RSS feed and turn it into a browseable webpage (amongst other
> things). They thus provide a service to the Oracle community at large,
> for free.

Make up your mind - is it a service, or isn't it? It is, and it's for free. You use it. If you do not like it, get over it, provide your own, better service, use another, whatever.

How often did you change dizwell to a point services did not work anymore?!? Re-register, etc, etc? Did someone start raging to a level you do? Did not thinks so.

>> Is this the heart of the matter? One of your posts became invisible
>> on one (1) aggregator after just 12 minutes?
>> Are you in any way depending on how long your posts are on this site?
>> Financially? Esteem?

Let's pretend I am. Just answer the question.

>
> I measured what happened to my post. If it happens to my post, it
> happens to other posts. In fact, it happened to all posts at that
> particular point.
>

>>> That is a loss of functionality. It is inconvenient to me. It is
>>> disruptive to me. If it is inconvenient to me and causing me
>>> disruption, I am fairly confident that it will be inconvenient and
>>> disrupting to others. Lots of others. But maybe not you.
>> No - not to me, indeed. And I fail to see the functionality
>> loss  in an aggregator, that is not yours to start with.
>> Again - if this is a service you pay for, things are different.
>> If provided for free, it's like this ng - you get what you
>> pay for.

Where did I say that? Do not jump to conclusions.

> Because Google provides their search service for free, so what do you
> care at the loss of functionality.

I would care. Do not put words in my mouth. But I'd switch to yahoo, and get on with life. No big deal.

> Blog aggregators provide a service. Chain letters swamp that service.
> Therefore this particular chain letter was a bad thing that needed to
> be stopped.

Well, seems like you failed. Seems like you upset quite a lot of people, that found your site quite useful, by shutting it down. I'm one of them - I just needed some information, I knew was on your site. I was unpleasantly surprised.

>> So you can "use" orana. What I get is a "I got mail" server/service?!?

I do not need to know the inner workings of the latest toy to know a spoiled child reacting when not getting it. And I do know how to recognize a spoiled child, which qualifies me to comment on your behavior.

>
> Define "emotionally involved". I have been inconvenienced. I have had
> functionality I used and relied on withdrawn from me.

>
> Yes, that annoys me. Yes, I am disappointed by that.

Reread your own words, asif they were mine, complaining about the fact you brought dizwell down.

>
> But I think you mean to imply a level of emotional involvement that
> provokes irrational "behaviour", as you put it. No, I am not
> emotionally involved to the extent where I would do strange,
> irrational or disproportionate things.
>

[snip out of context response]
>

>> That's like saying, if you don't like
>>
>>> the white noise coming from the earbuds of the guy sitting next to
>>> you, don't listen! But the fact of the matter is that the choices of
>>> others have impinged on the functionality of a website I use. Their
>>> actions have **taken away** my choice not to participate. Whether I
>>> like it or not, OraNA gets flooded with these posts, and I can't opt
>>> out of that.
>> Do not read/visit OraNA - really, life is simple, Howard - enjoy.
>> Or the aneurysm part might become true, and this really is not
>> a reason for it. Been there.
>> And regular train commuters all know how not to listen to things:
>> the sound of the tracks, conversations, ipods...

I already established that as a wrong parallel.
>
> Fine. I won't explain myself any more, but please stop, by way of
> return, making pronouncements about my "behaviour" that you
> professedly don't understand.
>

The original "I'm baffled with you behavior" still stands, and you still fail to make clear why you overreact the way you do.

You are of course in no way obliged to do so, but I'm not the only one (I did not start the thread), that wonders.

>
> That you don't understand the technology is evident, Frank. Try not to
> dig too deep a hole.

Now, who's belittling?
Let's just stop here, it's just not worth it.

-- 

Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting in UseNet newsgroups is one way to shut me up