Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)

[Kelley]

> Random832:
> If "non-standard" forms of quoting (there _are_ real standards, 
> and they describe the usual usenet style) were unacceptable for 
> general use, this entire community would be shut down for its 
> quoting conventions. But clearly that's not the case.

Kelley:
This isn't a usenet group; why should it be bound to usenet
standards?

> Random832:
> Look at this message (the part before this paragraph, since i 
> can't keep track of the numbers as they change as I type it). 8 
> attribution lines, 12 quoted lines, 9 blank lines, 19 original 
> lines. That's 12 full lines people have already read (and can get 
> back to in their inbox or the archive, particularly if I include 
> an archive number). 8 content-free lines. That's more than half 
> the message that someone who just wants to read the new stuff has 
> to scroll past. 

Kelley:
Well, I found it helpful, because it clearly showed me which 
comments of Steve's you're responding to.  It was right there, 
I didn't have to take any extra steps to find it, etc.

As some have said, there are times when paraphrasing might be a
good option, but others have also given solid reasons why it 
would add problems for them, rather than make things easier.

> Random832:
> You accused me (I cut out the quote referring to it because I 
> didn't originally attempt to address it) that I "seem to be 
> looking for a way around the rules"? No. 

Kelley:
What I'm seeing is that clearly you do not like our rules, and 
would like them changed according to your desires, to what is
easiest for *you*.

> Random832:
> I'm looking for a better way to do things - I don't care about
> the nitpicky details of _how_ quoting works - I think quoting 
> itself _doesn't_ work very well and creates difficulty for 
> everyone. 

Kelley:
*Clearly* that's *not* the case -- if it created difficulty 
"for everyone" your proposal would have an awful lot of support
here.

> Random832:
> And no-one's yet come up with a credible argument against my
> proposal. 

Kelley:
Incorrect - at least two members for whom English is their 
second language have commented about the difficulties this
would create for them.  We have a great many ESL members, and
chances are quite good that they'd have problems similar to
what's been described.

> Random832:
> The fact that my suggestion is not the way things are done 
> now is no reason not to _change_ how things are done - with 
> that attitude, you'd all never have _started_ changing things 
> where the old usenet quoting standard was inadequate.

Kelley:
This isn't about usenet.  I have no usenet experience; I learned 
quoting standards through HPfGU.  The rules here have evolved over 
the life of this group.  There is not a rule against paraphrasing, 
so it seems to me that if a great number of list members preferred 
that, they'd be regularly doing it.  That's not the case.

Look, as things stand, we're seeing no evidence that your proposal
would be welcomed by the group, that list members besides yourself
have such huge problems with the posting rules and that what you're
advocating would 'fix' things for them.  If there are lurkers here 
on FB that support Random's proposals, I'd like to hear from you.

Random, you're clearly capable of formatting your posts in 
accordance with our rules, so I'm really not understanding the 
issue here.

--Kelley