[beat]

Not arrogance, practicality. Closed groups are a fantastic way to maintain quality. No need for moderation, no newbies, no stupid questions, very high signal/noise ratio, comraderie of many years together.

There's a great deal to be said about the value of exclusive clubs. That's why they're so popular.

[nullymcnull]

Maybe there's an interesting discussion to be had about that. But OP asked:

> What are some of your favorite programming/security/sysadmin mailing lists and IRC chaneels?

He is looking for open channels, and you leave a pointless comment about some elite closed channel you're a part of. Then you further crapped up the thread trying to rationalize this with some chin-stroking about the 'tragedy of the commons'. That being the case I think it's totally fair (if not charitable) to characterize your response as arrogant.

[beat]

The OP didn't say "open". And frankly, the closed ones are often the best sources. Getting involved in a really high-quality closed list can solve a lot of problems.

Downrating my response? I can see that. Bitching about how "arrogant" it is? So WHO crapped up the thread, exactly? You're not exactly being fair here. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to respond to getting flamed.

Or alternately, you can view this whole unfortunate affair as the sort of tragedy of the commons that undermines the quality of discussion in public forums. You can close your mind to the point, or you can open it. Your call.

[pi18n]

Ok, I agree. But that's not what you wrote. If you had written the exact same post but concluded with a suggestion the OP start one it would have changed the tone immensely. What you wrote above was nothing more than boasting.

[beat]

It wasn't intended to be boasting, but that's how it came off. You're right, it was a lousy comment, and should have been more thorough.

[swah]

Bilderberg?