Re: New rules and guidelines

Mr. E (jackechs@EROLS.COM)
Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:45:04 -0500

This one is kind of a double edged sword ... on one hand you want to be
reasonable and just send your opinion on a topic. But then you realize ...
hey so and so just joined they haven't seen the whole thread. Then you get
flamed for not saying such and such and that is exactly what you
started/responded initially to the response with. I don't personally see a
win win in this maybe someone wiser can step in. We definitely can delete
all the signature files that add nothing to the discussion. My personal
rule ... I only copy the previsous message and chop off any excess spewage.
Occassionally, if it's a really long post in just it's self ... I only keep
the first paragraph and who sent it.

At 11:06 AM 02/07/96 EST, PamWilson wrote:
>I've been subscribing to this list for several months, and have really enjoyed
>much of the dialogue, especially the discussions about the nature and
mission of
>contemporary anthropology. However, since we're in a meta-discourse about the
>way the list runs this week, I'd like to make a request or suggestion.
>When replying to someone else's post, would it be possible for some of us
not to
>append the *entire* previous post to the end of their message? This ends up
>layers and layers of archived discussion attached to what is often a very short
>message. I personally prefer reading those messages in which the relevant line
>or two from the previous message has been excerpted and inserted into the
>response where appropriate.
>This excess and repetitive textual material takes up a huge amount of disk
>to slog through, with economic implications for those of us who are on
>commercial services and have to pay for our time.
>Since I'm fairly new, I don't know if this has been discussed before. If
this is
>a cultural practice that is appreciated by the rest of the list-members, then I
>humbly defer to the desires of the rest of the list.
>Thanks for listening!
>Pam Wilson
>Carlow College