Another Word about Protocol

Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:11:22 -0800 (00891353482, 2.2.32.19980331081122.0072658c@midwest.net) 

At 08:04 PM 3/30/98 -0600, box191@iland.net wrote:

>At 07:17 PM 3/30/98 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:

>>TILL

>>Dick, when you post to this list, would you label your comments as I have

>>done?  It helps readers understand who has said what after a posting has

>>been bounced back and forth a few times.

>

JONES

>And I asked if you were the list owner? Is this a divine law

>or what?

>

TILL
And I have told you that I am the owner of the list.

JONES

>This format contrary to the usual and customary net practice

>is nothing but a time waster. The sender of a message is known

>before it's even opened and normally there are only two in the

>discussion, with the other automatically identified by most

>software at the beginning and the remarks distinguished by the

>customary > symbol.


TILL
If only two people are communicating by e-mail, the > symbol(s) would
identify who said what, although even then, a point will eventually be
reached where checking the > symbols will distract attention from the
thought, but when several people become involved in discussing a thread,
which happens quite often on a list like this, messages bounced back and
forth several times become utterly confusing.  I explained this once before,
and this will be my last explanation.  If you don't want to follow the
protocol, then don't.  But don't be surprised if you find that no one is
responding to your postings.  That will be because they aren't being read.

I will soon be closing my computer down for the night.  Tomorrow morning
when I encounter the first unlabeled posting from you, I will trash all of
your others.  If others on the list want to tolerate your insolent refusal
to be considerate of your readers, that is a choice they will have to make.



Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net