>(Abstract)
>I propose that we, where possible, try to summarize our
>contributions to the reflector in the form of an abstract.
>(End of Abstract)
>
>I don't know about everyone else, but I find it hard to
>keep up with the volume of mail that is sent to the reflector.
>Having a subject line is some help in deciding which messages
>to read, but I feel it is insufficient.
>
>Often a thread drifts (sometimes quite legitimately) from the
>subject stated in the subject line. You could argue that in this
>case we should simply change the subject line - but this is
>problematic. Firstly, people can be lazy. Secondly, changing
>the subject may mean that the people you are trying to respond
>to don't read your message (as the subject line has changed).
>
>The problem is that threads don't change suddenly, but rather (dare
>I say it) they evolve. The subject line tends to link a _thread_
>together rather than linking a particular _subject_ together. At
>the beginning of a thread, the correlation between the subject and
>the subject line may be quite high, but after the thread has been
>around for a while, the correlation becomes less and less. If you
>judge what to read based on the subject line, you may end up reading
>what you don't want to read, or miss reading things you would really
>like to read.
>
>I propose that, where possible, we try to summarize the content of
>our contributions with an abstract at the top. This should not be a
>rigid requirement - sometimes an abstract will not be appropriate.
>But rather, it could be encoraged as a good thing to do. Having
>abstracts will:
>1. enable people to determine the rough content of a contribution
>at a quick glance; and
>2. will encourage people to think more carefully about exactly
>what it is that they are saying.
>
>I, for one, would find abstracts very helpful. What do people think
>about the idea?
>
>Yours in Christ,
>
>Mark Phillips.
>
>P.S. The other suggestion I have is that people give more thought
>to the presentation of their contributions. Sometimes contributions
>seem to be a mess of sentences randomly scattered in between a
>jumble of earlier posts. It might be better if people expressed
>their thoughts in only a few places, but made these expressions more
>substancial to make up for it. Irrelevant or redundant parts of
>earlier posts could be removed.
Russ