Gary: As Greg pointed out, you receive the digest version of The List. I
am not familiar with the digest version so I do not know its format.
Back in July of 2001, our List Administrator complained about the same
thing. As Administrator, Mark's concern was the waste of time and
bandwidth with useless verbiage. He called the 'guilty' Listers several
unflattering names and applied some disparaging adjectives to their
actions. As Administrator, he had a point; however, I disagreed with him.
I had prepared a response but it never got sent. Herewith were some of my
feelings at the time, modified slightly, but they are the same today.
I have never received any formal instructions as to how messages or replys
should be sent. This is all supposed to be based upon 'logic'. Well, one
person's logic is not necessarily another person's 'logic' It is very
frustrating to get that message that says, "Me, too -- what he said!"
without any details about what the subject was. This is more true when the
response is offering a solution to an unidentified problem that could be
beneficial to me and my Healey. I, for one, would rather have all the
background in one e-mail without having to go back in my in-box and try to
find all the previous correspondence. Determining what part or parts of a
message are relevant is in the eye of the replier and may not give the
information that others need to relate to the answer. For me, receiving
The List in its full content, having all the background in one message is
more beneficial and time efficient than trying to guess or research for
background.
For those who are computer fluent, I know that I can sort my e-mails by
subject and hopefully find all the relevant prior e-mails. However,
sometimes the
subjects change (e.g. your e-mail) and the prior e-mails on the subject may
not be in consecutive order. Or, in your case, your e-mail covers two
separate subjects. I vote for 'one click' efficiency as opposed to
'multi-click' search.
Thanks for lending my your soap box to provide my pithy response. ;-)
(And for those who do not recognize it, that is intended to be a humorous,
not sarcastic, ending sentence to a friend's e-mail)
(The Other) Len
Vacaville, CA
1967 3000 MKIII HBJ8L39031
> [Original Message]
> From: <Editorgary@aol.com>
> To: <healeys@autox.team.net>
> Date: 2/7/2006 10:21:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Friday Funnies ad nauseaum
>
> I too enjoy many of the Friday Funnies, and send them on to a close
circle of
> friends (I'm not one of those inveterate folks who dumps three-a-day into
> your inbox, but once in awhile, I have to say, "Now that there's funny."
For the
> rest, my scroll and delete buttons work just fine.
> Want to grump about something? If anyone wants to grump about anything
that
> wastes time on this list, I suggest we grump about those folks who
haven't yet
> figured out how to edit the responses to the responses to the responses
that
> hang off the end of their pithy comments like so much spittle from a old
> hound's mouth. It's easy: just highlight a very short part of the
previous message
> so we'll all know why you said, "Me, too -- what he said!" and leave the
rest
> to stay in the ethers.
> Now where do I return the soap box?
> Cheers
> Gary
|