Check this out, I'm top of the list!!:::
From: O'Regan, Emlyn <Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> To: 'email@example.com' <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 6:59 PM
Subject: META: How to survive reading this list
>Between 11 May 99 (start of property rights fiasco) and 4 June 99
>inclusive (minus the odd message that
>I might have accidentally deleted):
> Posts with "guns" in the subject: 293
> Posts with "property rights" in the subject: 257
> Total Posts: 1374
>Between 28 May 99 (random closer date) and 4 June 99
> Posts with "guns" in the subject: 292
>> Posts with "property rights" in the subject: 149
> Total Posts: 716
>Today (4 june only)
> Posts with "guns" in the subject: 25
> Total Posts: 77
>* 4 June is not all of 4 June, but up till when I wrote this post.
>These coarse criteria have missed a lot of posts on the same (futile)
>subjects. But the signal to noise is getting worse: I think that the
>signal to noise is getting worse too.
>Now I'm all for noise, otherwise I'd be mute. However, this is getting
>too horrible and dull: as much as I love a bit of abuse between two
>strangers (who will forget the first appearance of "fucking nimrod" in
>the guns posts) even I can't get excited by the guns messages anymore.
>I'm using the following scan for interesting posts:
>Anything by Gina Miller
>Anything by Anders
>Anything by Eliezer
>Anything by Damien Broderick (come on aussie)
>Anthing by anyone that I know/suspect has written a book (includes most
>og the above?)
>And anyone who puts up interesting ideas (Jeff Davis? All the people who
>put abstracts / links to websites up), lots of others, sorry to leave
>you all out).
>Subjects that don't have "re:" on the front
>messages in a thread (ie: re) for which the original message I read from
>Or anything which catches my eye as I (very quickly) skip over the rest.
>Damn, I don't think I made my own list
>The N in S/N
>Resolved to try a bit harder