Desperate measures

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Ebony AKA AngieJ" <ebonyink at h...> wrote:
> 
> AH!  I forgot to mention that, Dr. Pam... one of the rules over at
> KS is "one post a day--if you post twice, you had better have a 
> darn good reason".  So people combine everything they want to say 
> into a Rita-like post (grins at our Catlady).
> 
> (snip) I like Rita's and Amy Z's combination posts which are 
> usually filled with insights on various things.

I am very glad to hear that, as I often worry that my combination 
posts are so long that people get exhausted and give up long 
before they reach the end. (I hate to think of anyone missing out on 
reading all MY 'pearls of wisdom'<g>)

But the idea of a ONE post per day rule alarms me, partly for the 
selfish reason that I don't combine EVERYTHING: I combine responses 
to every post I've read in one sitting, then if I check the list an 
hour later and see something else to respond to, I post a one-topic 
response. Sometimes I like reading the back-and-forth posts, like a 
conversation, discussing some on-topic question and reaching a 
tentative answer.

Sometimes I feel annoyed when a LOT of people all answer the same 
question: don't they read each other's posts? But I now will remind 
myself that many people only read a fraction of the posts, so the 
more posts convey the same information, the more chance that they 
will read ONE of them.

The other thing that annoys me is when people reprint the whole long 
message, maybe even the whole thread, that they are replying to. 
People who read Digest Form must be WORSE than annoyed by it. If I 
won $20million in the lottery (I don't buy tickets, considering that 
I am just as likely to win without buying a ticket as if I did buy a 
ticket), I would hire people to be subscribed as 'moderators' but 
actually to be editors, reading every post before it is posted simply 
to delete excess repeated material.
> 
> Also a great idea... but isn't that just general Netiquette?  One 
> ought to lurk a bit or at least read the past 50-100 posts at 
> mininum before plunging in. 

I like egroups (Yahoogroups) that have set their options so that 
non-members can read the Messages archived on the website. I like to 
read the back messages (HPfGU now has too many to read them all, but 
didn't when I first joined) and not join unless it is a conversation 
that I want to participate in. Some yahoogroups have set their 
options so that only members can read the messages, so I am 
'subscribed' webview only to lists I don't even remember.

I said that as a hint to people who found new yahoogroups to consider 
setting their new groups' options to non-members may read.