Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)

[Steve]

---  "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Kelley:
> > This isn't a usenet group; why should it be bound
> > to usenet standards?
> 
> Random832:
> It also applies to email - it just originated on usenet. 
> I was pointing out the irony of calling my suggestion 
> "non-standard" when what's _already_ done is anything
> but standard.
> 

bboyminn:

We are not talking about UseNet, and I certainly was 
talking specifically about the HP groups when I made 
the comment about 'standards'. A fair and reasonable 
interpretation would have been 'our standards', OUR 
standards in OUR groups. Proven standard that have grown 
and stood the test of time and function.

Regardless of how 'our standards' relate to the rest 
of the Internet, these are the standards we use here.


> > 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 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".
> 

bboyminn:

There is nothing wrong with what you are suggesting as 
long as you apply it in a fair and reasonable context. 
As long as you are able to make coherent understandable 
posts, you are not obligated to quote anyone. It's just
that most people do quote because it's most effective
for an on-going discussion, and when they quote we try
to encourage them to quote according to what WE have 
found to be the most effective method.

I frequently post without quotes or paraphrasing of any 
kind, but I do so in a 'fair and reasonable' context.


> > 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? Why did someone call my suggestion 
> "non-standard" as if that's a bad thing when the way 
> things are done "here" do not adhere to any standard.
> 

bboyminn:

You seem determined to be contrary. We have OUR standards 
and that is what we care about. Those standards are NOT set 
in stone, they do change and evolve and have a degree of 
flexibility as has already been pointed out by myself and 
others.

Further, your suggestion is non-standard for OUR groups, 
not forbidden, just not the standard and common method of 
posting for OUR groups. 

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

bboyminn:

Well, that is exactly what I did. I said in a fair and 
reasonable context you could do what you suggested, and 
in a fair and reasonable context it would be allowed, but 
it would also be considered non-standard for OUR GROUPS. 
And I further admitted that at one time or another, most 
have us have done exactly what you suggested. At one time 
or another, but NOT all the time.

We do what we do because since the beginning we have 
continually refined OUR rule to make them work better 
for US. Regardless of what you think, in the course of 
6 years of posting in OUR GROUPS and OUR CONVERSATIONS 
we have discovered what works for US. We have discovered 
what is necessary and effective for deep, coherent, 
complex, orderly discussions.

Why do we continue with the existing rule? Again because 
they work. Inconvinient and tedious as they may be on 
occassion; they do work. If we see a need for change and 
find an effective method to impliment that change, we will 
be on it immediately. 

Whether you like it or not, the majority of the group are 
generally satisfied with the current method of posting. You 
will notice, no one has leapt on your suggestion and 
championed it. (In fact, though you don't seem to see it, 
I have championed your idea more than anyone.) Mainly 
because most of us don't think it will improve the situation 
for the group. If implimented as our standard method of 
posting, most of use don't see it as making the discussion 
easier or cleared or more orderly or more effective. It may 
indeed be less work, but 'less work' is not necessarily the
road to 'most effective'. 

Once again, I suggest that you just go with the flow for a 
few months. Then when you have a real feel of the group and 
how it works, you might be in a position to tell us what will 
and will not improve things. 

We really are not resistant to change when we see the need 
for it.

Steve/bboyminn