 |
 |
>Delivered-To: [log in to unmask] >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:53:53 +0700 >From: "David Thurston" <[log in to unmask]> >Sender: "Parkinson's Information Exchange Network" ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) >X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.3.0, > Antispam-Data: 2005.3.27.19 >X-Orcpt: rfc822;[log in to unmask] >Reply-To: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network ><[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Clutter on the List (again) >X-DCC-Qwest.net-Metrics: mpls-cmx-12.inet.qwest.net 1210; Body=3 Fuz1=3 > Fuz2=3 >X-SA-Poll-Id: >1111993345.10080.5326.mpls-mailin-11.inet.qwest.net..8..1111985633000 >X-SA-USERIDNR: 66024 >X-SA-MPREASON: enabled mailing list > >"Oh, it's him again, with another lecture," I hear you say. > >On Sunday 27 March Jo Ann Coen made a post to the list in reply to a >post by Rayilynlee on 25 March. >Jo Ann's post consisted of three lines of text. > >It was followed more than 500 lines of quotes from post we'd all read >before several times, going back 10 days. > >Every day, those of us who choose to subscribe to the daily digest >version of the list, have to trawl through this useless bulk. Must we >really have all this repetition? Surely, what we are all after is new >comment, fresh thoughts. > >No personal criticism is intended here, especially not to you Jo Ann, >whose posts are always illuminating. Just a desire to tidy things up >and hopefully make life easier for everyone. > >As in any society, the net only works because people agree to conform >to a few conventions. It has become known as netiquette. I quote from >the guidelines of a professional graphic arts list of which I am a >member: "When replying to a message, include enough original material >to be understood but no more. It is extremely bad form to simply reply >to a message by including all the previous message: edit out all the >irrelevant material." In fact, that list goes as far as automatically >rejecting any post which quotes more than 24 lines of quoted reply. > >In our list , on occasion, there are 15 or more consecutive list >instructions on how to sign off! (The list certainly makes it unusually >easy for people to sign off, but that's another matter altogether). I >have no intention of signing off, I think the list is interesting and >valuable. And those who subscribe to it are good people who mean well >and share a common end. But can we not discipline ourselves and when we >press the reply button, do a little deleting? > >All the best to you all, > >David, aged 62 diagnosed 1988. symtoms 1987 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] >In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn