[ga-rules] Posting Professionally (was "Consensus")

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 23:36:32 -0700, Chris McElroy aka NameCritic wrote:

> I agree or how about me too? We put a lot of time into this and sometimes
a
> short answer in support is all we have time for but feel it important to
> show that we agree about something when it isn't obvious we would agree,
> such as me agreeing with William here.

Sure, Chris.  But you the rest of the message can be trimmed.  The trouble
is that it is a lot of work to cut and paste, supply dates and generally
perform professionally.  Take the following post, for example:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:29:56 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Bill and all,
>
> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Eric:
> >
> > You are too, too, kind! :-)
> >
> > What that approach does is recognize that (as proven
> > in Florida) voting processes do not constitute an exact

<snip rest of message>

Jeff was replying to Bill who was replying to Eric.  Say I want to reply to
Jeff in context of the other two messages.  Who can reference any of the
dates without looking up the originals?  That uses up the time of the
potential respondent because the previous poster was sloppy.

Should that continue for more than one or two posts, the whole thread
becomes a mess.  It is particularly acute when the subject headings are not
consistent or are jumbled.

Even a "me too" needs to be clear with what is being agreed to !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


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