[HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)

[Jordan Abel]

Kelley:
> Random, I can't keep track of what you're suggesting anymore.

Random832:
Well, then we're even, since I can't keep track of what everyone else
wants. My talk of what you call "nested attribution" was just saying
that it's a perfectly adequate way to accomplish the ONLY goal that
people have stated - to be able to tell who said what. If there's
another reason for requiring this group's weird attribution style
instead of the standard used everywhere else, no-one's told me. But
regardless, that wasn't the topic of THIS thread, and you're being very
disingenuous in claiming that you thought it might have been what I was
talking about when I had LONG since moved on.

Kelley:
> 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?

Random832:
Well, whatever it is, this post (if you interpret it as a reply to my
previous posts instead of the one you hit "reply" on, and it really is,
since you're addressing things I didn't mention at all in that post) is
a perfect example.

Kelley:
> I don't know what you're saying here; what do you mean by "direct
> [inline] quote"?

Random832:
You missed the part of my original suggestion saying that sometimes
quoting would be necessary, and when that was the case the quote could
be included in real quote marks (i.e. the ones above the apostrophes on
your keyboard). That's what I meant by that.

Kelley:
> And then lastly in that post you then bring up the suggestion of
> top-posting.

Random832:
The suggestion of top-posting was a joke. Though without the usenet
"standards" on which to base that arbitrary decision, it's not clear
what's wrong with it anyway.

Kelley:
> 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.

Random832:
I was talking about the no-direct-block-quote suggestion. None of the
others were the topic of THIS thread. I think you are deliberately
trying to confuse the issue to turn others against me.

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

Kelley:
> What do you mean by 'natural'?

Random832:
It's not what you do when answering a letter (the kind that's written on
paper), is it? It's not what you do in a phone conversation. What's
"natural" about it?

> 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.

Random832:
Sure it would be more difficult. They already know how to quote. That
doesn't mean it would be more difficult to learn than quoting was
originally, which is what you seem to be claiming. But regardless,
bringing up that _others_ would find it hard to _write_ messages that
way when I was only asking for permission to do it myself (surely you're
not claiming it's harder for ESL members to _read_ such messages) is
again, a deliberately misleading statement (Ordinarily I'd give you the
benefit of the doubt, but I've already answered this misconception in
too many other posts to think you're doing anything but _deliberately_
misconstruing my words)

> 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:
I have NEVER said that not quoting should be required (though there is
a rule on the books that quoting should be minimal, it's just not
enforced very much)

> Kelley:  Well, they adhere to our *own* standard.

Random832:
No they don't. The usenet quoting standard is
<http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage--1.03.txt>.
Where is our standard? That's what I meant when saying there is none.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that calling any
divergence from what happens to be done by others on any given day
"non-standard" is rather silly. Anyway, I didn't expect to be pulled
into such a serious debate for just a passing mention of something
I found ironic.

> 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:
I never proposed _requiring_ anything for anyone. And what's wrong with
encouraging something if, as I suspect it will, it turns out that such
posts are easier to read and result in more expeditious resolution of
misunderstandings?

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.

Random832:
I guess you're not understanding my definition of what a "standard" is;
it is a document that describes how things are to be done. The quoting
style here is a custom, which may have lasted for "years" [well, three
years. two and a half.] but there is no document describing it. So
I feel a bit lost, especially given conflicting accounts of what is
required (one elf tells me that only one or the other of self-
attribution or signature is required, then later another complains at me
for not self-attributing on a post I signed. And apparently they're both
right. How am I supposed to know, when there's no standard I can refer
to? How can I even complain about their actions, when there's no
standard THEY can refer to?)

The only standard that exists for quoting is USEFOR USEAGE section
3.2.2.1 - there are other communities that do things in other ways,
certainly, but no others have bothered to set them in writing as
a standard. Few enforce them so rigidly as to need one, but it's very
exasperating when I'm not told what exactly is required but nonetheless
keep getting sent "friendly reminders" for not following different and
conflicting requirements.

>> Random832:
>> 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

Random832:
I'm rapidly finding that no-one really finds anything wrong with what
I'm _actually_ suggesting (or if they do they won't say why), merely
that they either honestly can't understand what I'm suggesting, or
(sadly, this seems more likely given the sheer number of times I've
explained it) they're deliberately misunderstanding in order to spread
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to turn everyone else against me.

> bboyminn:
> Further, your suggestion is [...] not forbidden,

Random832:
Could have fooled me - not a single person responded to my original
proposal with a "go ahead, we won't stop you, there's nothing in the
rules against that". I asked for permission, and no-one bothered to say
that I don't need it.

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

Random832:
Then why is everyone so vocally against the idea of letting me do
something that's not against the rules, with the idea that maybe others
would follow WITHOUT IT EVER BECOMING A REQUIREMENT.