|
|
Spurious claims and messages
Lief M. Hendrickson (hendrick@NOSC.MIL)
Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:23:43 PST
On Feb 20, Monte Kay Wagner wrote:
>Maybe I can:
>The original post linking Dr. Holloway's comment on sexual dimorphism and
>Shulamith Firestone was appended by Lief M. Hendrickson
><hendrick@nosc.mil on February 17 at 7.20 pm.
>So much for professional integrity Mr. Hendrickson!
I'd agree- so much for integrity, i.e. the lack of integrity at
mkw5@columbia.edu. The little voice from the peanut gallery is
referring to some confusion, over the weekend, because someone
else was criticized for my words. She's somehow blaming me for
it, as if I wouldn't own up to what I said. As soon as I had
time, I prepared a post answering the questions about the linkage
between the two subjects and sent it to the list on Feb. 20.
Apparently, there have been some system delays and distribution
was delayed until Feb. 22. Meanwhile, I'm certainly not
responsible because someone can't read who said what!
I would not deny having said something which I'd previously
posted to the list- especially since a copy is kept by the list.
I'd like to remind everyone that postings to the list are kept in
archives. You've all received the message from the list owner
which has information about the archives. If there is a question
about something that was said in the past, it would be wise to go
back and get a copy and read it before making false accusations
based on faulty memory. It's pretty ridiculous to expect an
answer from someone on why they said something when they weren't
the one that said it (back to the question of why did the man
beat his wife?).
Considering the archives, surely everyone must realize there is a
finite amount of space for storage of list messages and
considerable resources are used for distribution. The practice
of sending private messages to the whole list bogs down the
system and serves no useful purpose. For example, the following
private message was sent Feb. 20 by Matthew Hill:
>What are you doing up at this hour Ralph?
>Matthew Hill
>Don't bother to reply, I think I have read myself out of insomnia.
>I'm going back to bed.
Now, why in the world was it necessary to send a copy of this
message to over 700 members on the list? Most of them didn't
even get it until the next day. Even if Ralph got the message,
he was asked not to reply, so what's the point? Now that the
message is in the archives, what thread is Danny going to link it
to- maybe "insomnia"!
Though this example is clearly a waste, there are others who
habitually send one-liners, directed at one person, to the whole
list. In the case of one particular person, I think the desire
for the list to see all her private messages shows how much her
ego is inflated. For others, however, it may be unintentional.
As an example, a mail utility may have a reply command that sends
a message to the source directly, but unknowingly picks up the
list address from the header and puts it in a cc: thereby sending
the whole list a copy. It would be helpful for everyone to note
the important difference between sending private messages verses
those that are intended for the whole list.
|