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

[harry]

OK if its a flamewar why didn't I get invited ??   ;^)

My two cents (deux francs ??)

1)  I don't need the sdiy tag... but its OK if it stays or goes  (whatever rick
likes!)

2) I use Reply to get an individual... reply all to get the group.  Soory to the
one person
who gets a double mail. Happens to me all the time, no problem. Takes about 1
second
to read / verify as dupe / delete !

3) I ask myself... is there a lurker on the list who might benefit from
"eavesdropping" on
a post to an individual ??? then I reply all.

4) If it is sensitive (like maybe a private apology if I step on someone's toes...
or maybe
I was joking and someone didn't take it as a joke) then I "reply"

I may have (one time) posted to the list by accident.  Hey everybody, READ what
you are going to launch.  Meet the members, remember who IS and IS NOT likely to
take your comments seriously... then post responsibly.

This thread should go to bed !!!

H^) harry

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