OT: [sdiy] Replying <and tags> :)

[Jim Johnson]

This is what happens when I click "reply to all".

Bottom line: everything was working fine. Why was it changed?



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/26/01 at 11:55 PM jbv wrote:

>jbv wrote :
>
>>
>>
>> What I actually meant was : if all of you (mostly because that's
>> the way things are) "agree" to take the time to cut & paste the list
adress,
>> it'll only take 1 more second to erase the additional "Re :" in the
subject
>> line. No big deal...
>>
>> I really hope this will close the argument (which hopefully never
started).
>>
>>
>
>
>After receiving the above quoted message, a couple of list members emailed
me
>personnaly, saying that it didn't close the argument and that I was wrong
:
>they don't have to cut & paste the list adress because they use the "reply
>to all" button.
>
>Fine.
>
>At this time, and with your permission, I'd like to add a few dumb
>questions / remarks :
>
>1) I used the "reply to all" button to send this message; and it didn't
>add any annoying additional "Re :" to the subject line...
>Could it be possible that this whole discussion is pointless ?
>
>2) no matter which reply button you use, and no matter if you cut &
>paste the list adress or not, if any additional "Re :" is added, it still
>doesn't take more than 1 sec to delete it from the subject line...
>
>3) on this list as well as on others, I never really understood why
>ppl often reply to all, which means : send the same reply to the
>list AND to the original message sender...
>My tiny brain sees only 2 possibilities :
>    a) the answer is meant to be public, and therefore is sent to the
list,
>and is received by the original message sender, since he/she is a list
>member.
>    b) the answer is meant to be private, and should be sent privately.
>
>"Replying to all" appears to me as :
>
>1) a demonstration of lazyness (it skips the cut & paste option, plus
>it demonstrates a lack of interest for the ongoing thread and for the
>list itself by avoiding to choose if the response should be public or
>private, and can be considered more like a burst of ego than a real
>& thoughtful contribution to the discussion - and thus, in some ways,
>is a (slight) offense to the netiquette)
>
>2) it wastes bandwidth by needlessly sending multiple copies of the
>same message to the same person
>
>3) it clutters the recipient's mailbox with multiple copies of the same
>message...
>
>But well, I REALLY don't want to start any flame war nor endless
>discussion...
>
>My original message (with the tag request) also featured a suggestion
>for the archives management which, strangely, wasn't discussed by
>anybody... I for one regret it, but who am I to insist ?
>Nevertheless, I keep thinking some well-organized & well-managed
>archives could be of some use to all of us...
>
>jbv


Jim Johnson 
Metaphoric Software
-------------------
Makers of Techno Toys
Software for Electronic Music
http://www.technotoys.com
info at technotoys.com