Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)

[Kelley]

> Random832:
> I want more flexibility. Can you tell me what's _wrong_ with 
> what I'm suggesting, rather than simply "that's not how We do
> things around Here".

Kelley:
Where did I convey that?

Random, I can't keep track of what you're suggesting anymore.  
There was all the stuff about attribution/self-attribution/signing.
Then it was nested attribution, which as someone else has said, 
can get very messy and frustrating beyond two levels, imo.
Then it was paraphrasing. Or no quoting/mention at all of the
comments you're replying to.  I can't tell which, or was it both?
In the last post you made replying to Lee (the one following this 
one that I'm replying to now), you say "...but my original intention 
would be that any reference to a previous post _not_ supported with 
a direct [inline] quote would be accompanied with a message number." 
I don't know what you're saying here; what do you mean by "direct 
[inline] quote"?  And then lastly in that post you then bring up
the suggestion of top-posting.

So, when you say you want to know what's 'wrong' with what you're
suggesting, I don't know which suggestion you're talking about.


> > Kelley:
> > Incorrect - at least two members for whom English is their
> > second language
> 
> Random832:
> Nobody had yet brought up ESL at all at the time I said that this
> morning. 

Kelley:  Okay, fair enough.

Random832:
> Anyway, I still don't find it very credible - quoting isn't
> natural, 

Kelley:
What do you mean by 'natural'?

Random832:
> there's no reason to think it's in any way "easier" than just
> responding without quoting, except that they've had practice 
> having the sort of conversation where heavy quoting is involved. 
> To say that doing it one way is harder than doing it another way
> for ESL users requires that it is harder in general.

Kelley:
Again, I'm not feeling clear on what you mean when you say 
"requires that it is harder in general".  To keep things straight
here, my understanding is that two of our ESL members stated that
it would be more difficult/confusing/problematic for them to try
to create a paraphrase of another members comments.  Perhaps they
can say if I've misunderstood.

But what you're talking about in the paragraph above is what you
refer to as 'zero quoting', yes?

> > Kelley:
> > The rules here have evolved over the life of this group.
> 
> Random832:
> Then why does everyone seem to want the current form to be set 
> in stone? 

Kelley:
Again, what I'm seeing is that people are just saying they prefer
the current incarnation of the rules, that they find them to work
well for this group.  That's how I feel, at any rate.

Random832:
> Why did someone call my suggestion "non-standard" as if that's
> a bad thing 

Kelley:  
I've lost track of who said that, and I don't even know what is 
or was meant by 'non-standard'.  (And again, I don't know which 
suggestion we're talking about.)  I agree that in many ways, 
compared to other forums, etc., our rules *are* non-standard, as
far as that goes.

Random832:
> ...when the way things are done "here" do not adhere to any
> standard.

Kelley:  Well, they adhere to our *own* standard.
 
> > Kelley:
> > Random, you're clearly capable of formatting your posts in
> > accordance with our rules, so I'm really not understanding the
> > issue here.

Random832:
> It's a waste of space, time, bandwidth, and effort. It's 
> unnecessary.
> 
> And if there's really no rule against it, why didn't I get a 
> single response along the lines of 'sure, go ahead, we won't 
> stop you, there's no rule against it anyway'? 

Kelley:
Gah, so all this time what we're talking about is paraphrasing??
I understand you're proposing this as an experiment, but my 
impression was that, if this is a 'successful' experiment I guess, 
that the result would be that we then use that as a preferred means
of posting over quoting, as an across-the-board kind of thing, 
encouraging/requiring it for everyone.  That's not correct?

Random832:
> And why do you keep talking about "our rules" when "There is not 
> a rule against paraphrasing"???

Kelley:
Honestly, I didn't know which particular rule you were complaining
about anymore.  Really, I'm trying not to, but I *am* getting a
little exasperated; I can't keep up with what you want, and I'm 
starting to feel like we can't win with *you*.

--Kelley