Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2001)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:46:00 -0700
To: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ ripco . com>
Cc: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Message from "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ ripco . com> of "Mon, 28 May 2001 18:35:06 CDT." <200105282335 . f4SNZ6j19344 @ ripco . com>
References: <200105282335 . f4SNZ6j19344 @ ripco . com>

On Mon, 28 May 2001 18:35:06 -0500 (CDT) 
David W Tamkin <dattier @
 ripco .
 com> wrote:

> JC Lawrence wrote, 

>> The reasons listed of which the above is one, > were, as stated
>> in the original message the responses from > querying one of my
>> list memberships.  I'm a reporter in this > aspect.

> My apologies.  I understood that on first reading, but by the time
> I got to replying it had slipped my mind.  So the views expressed
> therein were some from members, not from JC.  Sorry for thinking,
> much less posting, otherwise.

No worries.  I should apologise for being so snippy.  I've been
carving up a termie ridden deck with a bad back, and have not been
in the ebst mood.  Apologies.

> Both of those say, "RTL discourages replying off-list."  Well, no
> kidding.  


> But "RTS encourages replying off-list" is not equivalent and is
> not true. 

Perception appears the stronger battle.

> Declining to discourage an act is very different from encouraging
> it.  

We're arguing interpretation of the score at this point, when we
both know the song.  Yes, we can dispute exactly how transitive
"encourages" has definitionally etc etc etc yada yada, but I don't
see it gets us any further.

> Besides, how is reply easier than reply-to-all?  

The argument there is human habit.  They are as as used it hitting
"r" for replies as I am to always hitting ^R for ReplyToAll.  One
can view as an excuse for human fallibility.

> Show me a list where the majority of members use a client where
> reply-to-all is more difficult than reply, please.

Again, it is a perceived thing.  Consider:

  By rote I always do <pick_reply_type>.  I am so used to this I do
  it without thinking.  I think, "Oooo!  I want to say something to
  that message!" and my fingers automatically reach out and hit
  <pick_reply_type>.  But, now you want to set up your list so that
  I'm going to have to stop myself and instead think about which
  reply type I'm going to want in each case, and in fact your going
  to insist that for me to effectively participate, I'm not only
  going to have to be familiar with the different types of reply,
  but I'm going to have to use them appropriately.

  Life was so much simpler when I just did <pick_reply_type>.

  My brain hurts.

Yes, functionally, physically, almost every MUA out there makes the
two reply types equally accessable and "easy".  Some even make RFC
2369 ListReply equally easy -- but using them both or all three
means (l)users have to contextually think before they act...

J C Lawrence                                       claw @
 kanga .
The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: list to honey..
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: "Roger Fajman" <RAF @ CU . NIH . GOV>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ ripco . com>
Next: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>

Search Internet Search