DP0N@A.CS.CMU.EDU (10/23/85)
From: Don.Provan@A.CS.CMU.EDU God damn it, *PLEASE* stop quoting the message you're replying to in SF-Lovers!! I realize you're all on UUCP and, therefore, can't think, but there are two separate entries in #409 (so far: I haven't finished it yet) that quote the message asking for feminist sf/fantasy suggestions. Don't you think a subject of "re: feminist sf/fantasy" sorta covers it? I've been sending complains to any individual posting quotes, but the UUCP world is just too large to make this a practical way to stop the problem. Come on, guys and gals, give me a break!
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (10/23/85)
Lighten up. There are people who abuse the quoting of articles they
are replying to, but in many cases you NEED the context to understand
what the hell is going on. The decision as to how much context is
needed is subjective, and some people are better at making good
decisions of this kind than others. We need to REMIND each other from
time to time if we're annoying each other, but have a heart: we're all
human and make mistakes from time to time. And we also disagree on
what's right and wrong; I personally am annoyed at the periodic flames
condemning ALL quoting of articles in a reply. It's not an absolute
thing, folks; there's a time and a place for a quote. Let's try to
recognize each other's human weaknesses and extend the same courtesy
to each other in our net postings that we do in our face-to-face
interactions with other people.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingoglyhankb@teklds.UUCP (Hank Buurman) (10/26/85)
In article <499@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >Lighten up. There are people who abuse the quoting of articles they >are replying to, but in many cases you NEED the context to understand >what the hell is going on. The decision as to how much context is >needed is subjective, and some people are better at making good >decisions of this kind than others. We need to REMIND each other from >time to time if we're annoying each other, but have a heart: we're all >human and make mistakes from time to time. And we also disagree on >what's right and wrong; I personally am annoyed at the periodic flames >condemning ALL quoting of articles in a reply. It's not an absolute >thing, folks; there's a time and a place for a quote. Let's try to >recognize each other's human weaknesses and extend the same courtesy >to each other in our net postings that we do in our face-to-face >interactions with other people. > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly Bravo! Thanks Bill.
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (10/30/85)
>In article <499@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >>Lighten up. There are people who abuse the quoting of articles they >>are replying to, but in many cases you NEED the context to understand >>what the hell is going on. Agreed. >> I personally am annoyed at the periodic flames >>condemning ALL quoting of articles in a reply. It's not an absolute >>thing, folks; there's a time and a place for a quote. Let's try to >>recognize each other's human weaknesses and extend the same courtesy >>to each other in our net postings that we do in our face-to-face >>interactions with other people. >> OK. The need for (partial) quotations is obvious to me. However, the need to know that the name of a book that one person is reminiscing about is "Half Magic" about 12 times per day isn't obvious. Nor is the need for 35 public corrections about a smiley-faced mention of "feminist" authors. I seem to remember from my latest netiquette re-reading (I make a point of reading net.announce.newuser every 3-4 months) that such should be done by E-mail, and not by posting, if only because you *know* that somebody somewhere *will* post the answer. So please, PLEASE try to stop yourself from showing the world that you're one of 63 people who know that book title or Star Trek episode name. And I'll try to remember that netiquette also suggests not having meta-discussions. - joel
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (10/31/85)
In article <1602@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: >... So please, PLEASE try to stop yourself >from showing the world that you're one of 63 people who know that book >title or Star Trek episode name. And I'll try to remember that netiquette >also suggests not having meta-discussions. Hoping this is the last of the meta-discussion: anyone who posts an article asking for a book/ST episode/movie title or other information of this nature should ask for replies by mail only. I realize a few people will ignore even an explicit request like this, but it should help remind us to be considerate. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
smkindersley@water.UUCP (sumo kindersley) (11/01/85)
---
problem with re-quoting:
for some of us it has gone beyond annoying at 300 baud (even at 9600!).
our site is LOSING SOME NEWSGROUPS becuse of high phone bills at our news
node. sigh. i don't know about net.sf-lovers yet, maybe we'll get to keep
it. they are axing a few high volume ones. but about 40% (FORTY PERCENT!?)
of the content of the articles in the news directory is `junk' - requotes,
long signature files. CONTEXT IS NECESSARY. display of one's personality
MAY be necessary for some. this does not include endless repetitions of the
same comments (did anyone know tiptree is a WOMAN? well SO is andre norton!
surprise surprise). SOMEBODY pays those phone bills. it isn't you or me. so
what. anyway think about our loss when you are requoting. it is too late for
us and net.music and a few others, but please use RESTRAINT (how is this:
never quote more lines than YOU are writing).
maybe we won't lose any more groups. *PLEASE*? thanks, a lot.
--- sumo --- {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utcsri}!watmath!water!smkindersley ---