[LEN-E] Please...

[Ron Koster]

At 09:19 PM 5/26/2009 +0100, Nick Haysom wrote:

>Ron, I know you keep on about this and I sympathise but I fear you 

>are waging a losing battle.


So it would seem. ;)


>It is second nature for most people to hit Reply and add their 

>comments without thinking to delete preceding comments


I suppose it depends on the person, because for me it's second nature 
to trim and respond to include portions of whatever I'm responding to 
-- basically like I'm doing right here, actually. You have my 
response, and you can see quite easily and clearly what it is that 
I'm responding to.

But like I said, I guess that's just me? Well, not "only" me, of 
course (lots of people reply like this), but there's obviously no 
"rules" when it comes to writing style (we wouldn't have poetry, if 
that was the case!). ;)


>A huge advantage is that messages can stand alone within their 

>context, and it is not necessary to search back thru the list to 

>discover what initiated a thread or to locate a reference point.


I think my reply here would stand on its own quite well. ;)


>I would also point out that those who subscribe to the digest appear 

>to be almost exclusively lurkers and one might ask why those who 

>post should conform to the preferences of those who don't.


Well, it's not just for those on digest that it's a good idea to trim 
(and/or edit) one's responses -- it's just that those are the people 
most affected by others not doing so.


>I'm afraid I don't see what on earth this has to do with treating 

>other people with respect.


I don't know how to explain it -- but then, perhaps I am indeed being 
a bit too much of a "stickler" on this matter.


>Moreover, traffic on this list is not so high a daily digest is 

>really called for.


Maybe so, but that *is* some people's choice, to be on digest instead 
of receiving individual messages.


>Sorry, I'm off my soapbox now.


That's okay -- it's important to use soap. ;)


>I just feel that as you keep bringing this up it might be an idea to 

>discuss it a bit,


Which we are -- and I appreciate the discussion. The last thing I 
want to be is a "list Nazi". ;)


>particularly as in many years of membership of many many online 

>lists I have never encountered this particular instruction elsewhere.


Actually, for many -- perhaps even most -- of the many different 
lists that I've been on over the years, that *has* been a "list 
rule". Indeed, on some lists one can even end up thrown off if one 
doesn't follow that "rule" (but I would certainly never go *that* far 
here on this list). And on other lists where there are no "rules" at 
all, messages can get absolutely ridiculous sometimes, with people 
responding with little more than "Me too" or "I agree", but then 
including the entire previous 10-page message that they're responding to.

Like I said, though, maybe I'm being too much of a stickler over 
this. And so... well, whatever. I appreciate this discussion, and 
your thoughts/concerns, so maybe let's give it a shot and I won't 
nit-pick over this issue any more. After all, it hasn't really been 
*that* bad, but at the same time I can also certainly understand that 
it can be difficult (at times) for those on digest mode (especially).

But we'll see what happens, I guess.


>I accept, of course, that this is your list and I will try to 

>remember to trim... as here (but at what point in the thread am I 

>now replying...?)


I have no idea what you're referring to.

(just kidding)

Ron ;)

Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com
Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org
Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca