Re: Off-Topic RANT (was Re: [ga] Melbourne and nominations)

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

Sandy and all remaining assembly members,

  I understand your point, and in part agree with it.  However, some
here in the past have complained that "In-Like" responses are too
difficult to follow.  So, what to do?  I usually use the In-line method.
But sometimes if the post is long, and there are only some parts that
I wish to respond to I post my response on the top, for easier reading.
If the post that I am responding to is short, than I use the In-Line method.

Sandy Harris wrote:

> This is not a personal attack on Jeff. I happen to have used one of his messages
> as an example, but many others here routinely make the same blunders.
>
> It is hard enough following discussion on the list without people failing to
> follow well-known conventions in replying.
>
> Don't put the reply at the top, followed by a quote of the whole message!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The Jargon File's section on email quoting customs at:
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/Email-Quotes.html
> puts it this way:
>
> | Thanks to poor design of some PC-based mail agents, one will occasionally see
> | the entire quoted message after the response, like this
> |
> |     response to message
> |     > entire message
> |
> | but this practice is strongly deprecated.
>
> The main reason it is deprecated is that makes it impossible to see what you're
> replying to, short of scanning through everything you've quoted. Anyone coming
> late to the thread has to read the message bottom-to-top to make sense of it.
>
> This is a remarkably stupid thing to do, and extremely discourteous to readers.
> I know in many cases it isn't entirely the sender's fault. Outlook and Netscape
> (at least) make this the default. However, you can change it, so please do.
>
> In fact, you should almost never include the whole message in a reply, only
> enough to provide context for your remarks. The failure to trim replies leads
> to ludicrous wastes of space. For example, the message I'm replying to contains
> four copies of the footer this mailing list software adds to each message, and
> three copies of Jeff's sig.
>
> See the mailing list Etiiquette FAQ:
> http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html#SECTION00090000000000000000
>
> Their section on replies:
>
> |When replying, should I quote the previous message?
> |
> | Most certainly. You should always provide some context to your replies so that
> | people who may not have been following the thread closely, or who have other
> | things on their minds will easily be able to determine what you're talking about.
> |
> | However, when quoting, be very careful to edit the quoted sections down to the
> | bare minimum of text needed to maintain the context for your reply. ...
> |
> | If your mail program wants to attach the whole message you're replying to on the
> | end of your replies, please do not let it do this if you can possibly avoid it.
>
> RIGHT!
>
> | It is a good thing to include excerpts from previous messages with your replies
> | to maintain a logical flow of discussion, but it is almost always a bad thing to
> | include the entire text of a message being replied to, be it at the start or end
> | of your reply.
>
> Please, people. Learn to construct replies sensibly.
>
> My inclination here is to assume that anyone without enough net.clue to get this
> right probably is not worth listening to. Of course, I won't actually assume
> that, but it certainly influences my evaluation of various writers.
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > Joanna and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   No privileged life at all for me, to be sure, Joanna.  Just hard work.
> > That and work smarter is what it sometimes takes...
>
> What is he talking about?
>
> >   It is indeed terribly unfortunate that it now takes a significant amount
> > of $$ to participate in the "ICANN Experience" and keep the current
> > ICANN Board in line appropriately.  :(    As far as the participation
> > part goes, if ICANN could incorporate a reasonable "Remote Participation"
> > method, allot of this part of the problem would be eliminated altogether.
> > But that doesn't seem to be a high priority on the ICANN boards and staffs
> > priority list, and never has for some odd reason(s).
> >
> > Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Then indeed you lead a privileged life. Good for you..:-)
> > > Joanna
>
> Now we know what Jeff was refferring to.
> But what is the antecedent of Joanna's "Then"?
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Jeff
> > > Williams
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:41 AM
> > > To: jo-uk@rcn.com
> > > Cc: Roberto Gaetano; sidna@feedwriter.com; ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Melbourne and nominations
>
> This whole block could be replaced with "Jeff Williams wrote:"
> None of the rest of it matters to readers.
>
> > > Joanna and all remaining assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Oh no, not an offer at all.  It is a question, Joanna...   I just find it
> > > difficult that if someone wants to attend something badly enough, that
> > > they cannot find the $$ to do so.  At least in my 40+ years of existence,
> > > I have always found a way if I really wanted to....
> > >
>
> Aha! This is what the "Then" refers to.
> --
> 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 INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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