Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:41:55 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Day, Wally wrote:
> Perhaps some of the bickering and misunderstandings would go away if everyone would quit hitting reply and copying entire threads into each post.
>
>
What would be lost and what would be gained if one had to both never be
disagreeable and always carefully post in a way that the
misunderstandings with everyone with their own personal assumptions
would be minimized? Someone is always going to disagree with you
regardless, so it's better to say what you mean and mean what you say
than to "qualify" your speech to the lowest common denominator. Most of
the personal learning IMO occurs when people who disagree make their
cases, either politically correctly or not.
> Here's a suggestion - your reply should be longer than whatever text passage you are quoting. If you quote a message that already quotes a prior message (which quotes something else, which quotes something else, ad naseum); clean up old text that is no longer relevant.
>
> Thanks for your support
>
>
I disagree 100%. If my reply doesn't happen to need to be longer, but I
wish to be short and too the point, then I'll do that every time. I may
or may not edit posts to make them shorter. People who read posts need
to manage their reading, I'm not going to do it. I choose what I wish
to send and they choose what they wish to read. If one "chooses" to
read posts for example with a slow or small device, then they have to
accept the limits of their choice. I'm not necessarily going to manage
my writing to the worst level of network connectivity or the lower
quality email programs. If someone chooses to read in digest form, they
have to accept the limits of their choice.
Steve
|
|
|