From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 11:36:55 MST
Eliezer wrote:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >
> > But now, I ask you Eliezer, on list, for clarification.
> >
> > As a *general rule*, can't we expect to have *both* the
> > benefits of *any* poster's insights and the courtesy and efficiency
> > of their placing their thoughts in the thread to which they relate?
>
> I've sometimes joined together my replies where threads have split but
> then converged, so I don't think this is particularly awful netiquette.
If a thread diverges, then converges, I think that it *could* be fair
enough too. It depends a bit I think. I would hope that I would at least
think about whether I was injuring the context or clarity of the converging
threads which after all others have invested something in too.
I'd hope others would think about this too as part of their weighting up
of whether converging a diverged thread was worth it. Then when a
judgement in each particular case is made it may be a better one for
the extra consideration. In some cases *additional* context might be
found.
I do *not* think any recent decision to combine unrelated threads was
*intentional* rude. But unintended rudeness not pointed out does not
give the person a chance to know what's happened or reduce the
chances of reoccurrence.
I hope if anyone thinks I am rude that they will point it out to me for
my potential benefit as well. I will try not to be.
I do think it is worth our while given the constraints of a list to over-
engineer for courtesy with each other rather than to under-engineer
for it. What's the downside to a bit of extra courtesy?R. The upside
seems obvious enough.
Thank you for your clarifying comment.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST