Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Excellent comments and well articulated here Marilyn.  ( More comments
below yours on specific PARTS though...)  >;)

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I fear that I am part of the folks who don't trim away enough.  :-)

  Good, glad you don't!  >;)

>
>
> But that doesn't mean that I can't benefit from the experience of others to
> improve my own behavior.

  Well being a little less political and more practical and supportive of
AT&T customer's REAL wants, needs and desires would be a good
area to concentrate on for you!  >;)

>
>
> I had a conversation recently with an industry colleague in a developing
> country where he/she responded to my simple forward with a lot of
> unnecessary attachments [from their point of view] with a request: Please
> cut off any unnecessary text in your communications.  Online communications
> costs are much greater in [my] country than in yours.

  Anyone is of course free to take this approach at their discretion...

>
>
> So, I found this exchange in the GA both enlightening and interesting.  I
> think Kent is right about the  "online etiquette" issue, but some of us may
> still be thinking that context requires forwarding of the full string. And,
> since perhaps there are new folks on any communications, it might appear to
> be so.

  I don't believe Kent is correct on the "online etiquette" issue.  In fact
just the opposite.  It is improper to take someone else's comments out of
context by overly snipping them by the responder.  It's just plain rude
and misleading.

>
>
> But, since many will find the transmittal of the full string burdensome, I
> suspect we have a compromise somewhere in the middle on this issue.

  I would think this would very from post to post and dependent on
the context.

>
>
> I am part of, as are most of my fellow GA subscribers, other groups.  I note
> that some other groups I am a subscriber to, in other countries, also make
> the request of "cutting off the string".

  Yes some do.  But very few that I am aware of and none that I participate
on.

>
>
> So, while not endorsing either view, NOR SEEKING TO CREATE A NEW WORKING
> GROUP ON COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS, I wonder if we could benefit from just
> individually thinking of how we like to be communicated with, and try to
> achieve a process which doesn't burden others, but gets the points across
> which the "speaker"  wants to make.

  Personally I think this subject area is worthless for the most part, and
nonproductive to boot.

>
>
> MC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:47 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org; ga@dnsga.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:15:24PM -0400, Derek Conant wrote:
> > They may be "> > worthless quotes" to you, however, I believe that it is
> > good practice to have an accurate record regarding the text one is
> > responding to.
>
> If we all followed your prescription, then each email message would
> repeat the entire thread it was part of.  That is a singularly silly
> result, not worthy of a man of your intellect.  In practice, it is
> absolutely necessary to edit away repetitive material.  Bear in mind
> that everyone on the list has seen the material before, and moreover,
> the list is archived, and anyone who is confused can refer to the
> archive.
>
> Years of experience have lead to a few simple rules of email ettiquette,
> and one of the most important is to trim away unnecessary repetitive
> text, leaving only the amount necessary to identify the context, as I
> have done here.
>
> [...]
>
> > Give us a break.
>
> *You* give us a break.  You may think you are doing us a favor by
> quoting 12 layers deep, but it is the same kind of favor that a
> flatulent person bestows on a crowded room.
>
> > Are you trying to confuse people here, or what?  If
> > you don't like quoted text, then simply ignore the quoted text.
>
> Actually, Derek, if you can't abide by simple rules of ettiquette you
> will find that your messages will be ignored in total.  Experience shows
> that short meaningful comments are far more effective.  People tend to
> resent having their time and bandwidth wasted with unnecessarily
> redundant text.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html