[GRLUG] Rants and email formatting

[john-thomas richards]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:39AM -0500, David Pembrook wrote:
> This whole discussion should be one on one from a list admin to the 
> offenders if there are any. The whole list's attention is drawn to 
> rants. why are we wasting the time and energy? I know other people that 
> have left the list simply because of the wasted time sorting out these 
> discussions.

More time seems to be spent griping about those who gripe about bad
etiquette than griping about the bad etiquette.

> The powers that be need to step in and settle things off list where 
> needed, on list when appropriate. Otherwise this is just one big flame, 
> gripe and rant session and we loose people.
> 
> Those that really really care, could devote their attention to a 
> modification to the list software that reformats the emails. Simple 
> rules; single line feeds are removed, doubles indicate a new paragraph. 
> HTML messages could be removed, and other annoyances removed. Hey, we 
> could even turn this into something constructive.

These issues were settled long, long ago.  Our internet forefathers
figured out the best methods for communicating on a mailing list.  What
has changed since RFC 1855 was published that makes it obsolete?

I have no desire to argue this issue.  I am concerned about good
communication.  When I have to page down seven times to read what a
statement at the top of an email is in response to, good communication
is not happening.  The guidelines in RFC 1855 are not pedantic; they
are practical.  They work in that they make electronic communication
more effective.

Surely we all want to be part of the GRLUG mailing list; no one is
forcing a subscription.  Since we all want to be a part of it, surely we
want to communicate clearly and effectively.  Rather than trying to
reinvent the wheel, should we not use what has already been determined
to be effective?

[snip]
-- 
john-thomas
------
They know enough who know how to learn.
Henry Adams (1838-1918)