On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:37:10 +0100, Gary Collins wrote:
[...]
>SJ>I agree with this. How about we *all*:
>>
>>1. Limit ourselves to no more than *two* posts a day? (This is not hypocritical.
>>- I would *love* to have an exuse not to have to respond to the many posts
>>that are usually addressed to me);
It has occurred to me after I wrote the above, that I don't need an "an
excuse not to have to respond to the many posts that are usually addressed
to me"!
So from now on I am going to try to limit myself to a maximum average of
only two posts a day. I will aim for at least one of these to be a new post of
a newsworthy item. Because I only upload every 2-3 days, that may mean 4-6
posts every 2-3 days.
This means that I might have to ignore some posts and/or terminate
threads. I apologise in advance for those who feel I am ignoring their posts.
>SJ>2. How about those who post many brief posts a session (no names no pack
>>drill!) post less frequent but longer, more informative posts?
>>
>>3. How about there be more posting of informational articles and less debate?
>>If there is to be debate let there be one response and then shift the debate
>>off-List direct between those interested?
>>
>>4. How about the posts be addressed to the Reflector rather than to indiduals
>>(sort of like addressing the Chair at a meeting to cut down too-personal
>>arguments)?
>>
>>5. And how about not putting unnecessary cc.'s to others who are already on
the
>>list? In 4 years I have never received a cc. sent without also receiving the
>>main copy sent to the List.
>>
>>If there is anyone who agrees with me on these points could you indicate
>>it publicly so we could try to make it a voluntary code of conduct for the
>>List? I hope Terry Gray has a filter on his name and reads this for
>>comment as to its feasibility.
GC>I don't agree with point (3); I thought debate was what the lists were all about.
>I welcome information, as it saves a lot of time and effort on my part; but I could
>if I wanted go and dig up all the information for myself. What I like to hear on
>the list is other people's interpretation and opinions of such information, and to
>benefitfrom their insight and experience. This would be a lot harder to come by apart from
>the lists. Some of the lengthy debates I have found quite fascinating. Some,
>I agree, are tiresome (or eventually become so); but there is nothing to stop me ignoring a
>thread if I do not find it interesting.
Thanks to Gary for this. I tend to forget there are a lot of lurkers on this
list and they would not remain if they did not think that the debates were
worth reading.
GC>It is possible to delete e-mails without
>reading them; it is also possible to set up filters to direct unwanted posts to trash.
Agreed. The individual I referred to in 2. above did not take my hint, but
kept posting his low-content replies to *every one* of my posts, complete
with a cc! So I have inserted a filter in my emailer to delete his posts
unread. Out of courtesy I had already informed him of my action.
This is not a case of me "doing to others what I would not like being done
tome". I have no problem whatsoever with someone deleting my messages
unread. In fact I expect that some Reflectorites are doing this already.
GC>I agree with point (2); posts which add nothing substantial to a discussion are
>quite tiresome and a waste of everybody's time.
Agreed. I must say I cannot comptrehend why someone would waste their
time replying with such vacuous one-liners to every post. Maybe it's the email
equivalent of spraying grafitti on walls?
GC>As for point (5), I find that if I select 'reply all' then the post usually gets
>sent to the originator, cc the list and cc separately to other participants in the thread.
>I had to alter this one quite a bit to get it sent to the list only. I'm not sure if
>this is something that can be addressed by making changes to the way in which the list
>is set up (I think someone has suggested this) or if it's something in the netscape reader I'm
using. I agree that this, too, can be frustrating.
My emailer (PMMail 98 v2.01) has no problem with this. When I hit the
"Reply All" button I get the Reflector's email address, even though there is
no "reply to" line in the Reflector's mail headers. It seems to be working off
the Sender line. Sometimes if the email I am responding to has a cc. it puts
the Reflector in the cc. box (that's another reason why I don't like cc's!).
But then all I have to do is type "e" in the main reply box and it completes
the address of the Evolution Reflector.
"PMMail 98 v2.01" is the Windows 95 version of the leading IBM OS/2
emailer "PMMail/2 2.0", and I've been using it now for several years. I
actually own Eudora Pro v3.0 but IMHO PMMail 98 is much better. What
I like about PMMail 98, apart from it being full-featured, easy to use and
fast, is that it stores each message as a separate text file which makes it
easier to archive and I know I will never have a problem of not being able
to read my emails in the future.
PMMail 98 v2.01 can be downloaded from Southsoft at:
http://www.southsoft.com/pmmailwin.html. It can migrate Eudora files as
part of its installation. They are a good crowd and do support their
product.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put
forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation",
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p8)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------