Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)

[Kelley]

> 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. 

Kelley:
Heh, maybe we should all fall back and regroup, then. ;-)

Random832:
> 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. 

Kelley:
Okay.  "Adequate," sure, but it's also prone to making posts become
visually frustrating when they get cluttered with loads of chevrons 
everywhere, too.  So it's adequate, but not necessarily the best option. 

Random832:
> 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. 

Kelley:
Well, okay, if it seems weird, it seems weird.  But for me, and I
think I can safely say for lots of other members of these groups, 
it's preferred for its clarity.

Random832:
> 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:
I wasn't trying to claim that that was what this particular thread
was about; those were general comments about all the discussions 
we've been having here.
 
> 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:
Okay, so paraphrasing/summarizing/no direct quoting, etc.  I've 
got that.  So there's no longer any issue with the other topics
that we've been discussing here on FB?
 
> 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:
Okay, so just basically what we typically do re quoting.
 
> 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:
"Joke," ah, okay. :-)  For us, it's not arbitrary at all; here's
an admin that explains it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/154637

I'll also add that it gives the discussions more of a 
'conversational' flow.  When you're talking with someone, they'll
say something and you'll reply, or you'll say something and they'll
reply, and the conversation builds from there.

Yes, there are many arguments against this, we know; that's all
been discussed.  My point is that this wasn't an arbitrary decision
for us.

> 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.

Kelley:
No, I'm not.  I was going through all the messages, rereading many, 
catching up on others, and rather than make multiple replies, I 
wanted to address whatever I could in that post.

But again, these discussions have gone from topic to topic, mainly
with you expressing what you don't like about this rule or that
one.  That's fine.  But there are a lot of criticisms, and I'm
genuinely unclear on whether you're just remarking about things you
don't like, or if you're 'petitioning' the elves to change things
(for lack of a better term).

> 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:
Okay, I see what you're saying.  No, it's not natural in those
contexts, along with the context of a 'conversation' as I 
mentioned above.

But surely you must agree that it can be a useful function; in 
the context of these sorts of dicussion groups/mailing lists, 
particularly ones that can be quite busy with lots of folks 
participating in the discussions, to see a brief bit of the 
post being replied to, the specific bit in question, that does
help people reading along to have the best context for what the
new comments are saying.

That's the whole point of asking members to do that when they
post.  While groups like this have similarities to a conversation,
written letter correspondence, etc., there are also differences
and while something might be absurd to do in a written letter or
conversation, they can be useful and sensible for this sort of
medium.
 
> 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. 

Kelley:
No, I'm not claiming that; I don't *know* their position on that.

Random832:
> 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:
I'm not trying to mislead, that was me wanting clarification. More
below.
 
> 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, it's enforced more than many people might be aware, but
moving on.
 
> > 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:
Well, I appreciate that Usenet has such a detailed protocol, and I
understand your point that our groups don't have those sorts of 
standards.  But Steve has explained what he meant there, so seems
that's cleared up now.  Frankly, I'd give it up if we ever reached
the point of needing such standards, so I'm glad that's not the
issue here. ;-)

> Random832 re paraphrasing:
> 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?

Kelley:
I have no idea whether it will result in that or not, but sure, it
could be something that happens along the same lines as
self-attribution, just catching on among members.

> Random832, re self-attribution:
> <snip> ...but there is no document describing it. 

Kelley:
There might not be a document about it, but there are the posts
from your fellow list members..

Random832:
> So I feel a bit lost, 

Kelley:  Still??

Random832:
> 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?)

Kelley:
You must do *at least* one of the two (sign or self-attribute).
Doing *both* is the most helpful for your fellow list members.
I could go back to the way I used to format posts and not self-
attribute my own comments and I would not be contravening the
rules, but I choose not to do that because the 'inconvenience' 
it causes me is far outweighed by its helpfulness to other list 
members.

> Random832, re paraphrasing:
> 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.

Kelley:
Heh. No, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you, and no, there's
not any sinister conspriracy going on.

Now that I have a better idea of what you're talking about, it's
fine.  I would say please keep in mind that some people may end
up preferring their comments *not* to be paraphrased and their 
wishes should be respected.  Otherwise, you're welcome to do it.

> 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.

Kelley:
Well, that may be because some folks weren't exactly clear on
what it was you were proposing initially.  But again, go ahead.

Can we consider all this settled now?

--Kelley