Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #161394 > unrolled thread

OT: reply styles, family matters

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 02:40 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-01 03:00 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-12-02 05:30 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-02 20:50 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2015-12-02 20:50 +0100
            Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-03 01:40 +0100
              Re: OT: reply styles, family matters "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> - 2015-12-03 03:50 +0100
                Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 05:30 +0100
                Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-12-03 09:10 +0100
                  Re: OT: reply styles, family matters <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-03 09:30 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-02 21:10 +0100
            Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 21:40 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-02 22:20 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 02:00 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com> - 2015-12-01 03:20 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 04:50 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> - 2015-12-01 03:30 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 04:10 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-01 15:20 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-12-01 09:30 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:10 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:20 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 15:30 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-01 15:30 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters anxiousmac@gmail.com - 2015-12-01 18:30 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 22:00 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 11:30 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-02 18:20 +0100
            Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 21:40 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#161409

Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> writes:

> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."
>
> I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
> replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family the
> wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective
> communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They feel
> talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem with me years
> ago but I think I have brought him around over time so that he no
> longer "takes it personal."
>
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
>
Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in the style
*they* want?

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161410

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:54:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> writes:
> > "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> > annoying."
> >
> > I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
> > replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family the
> > wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective
> > communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They feel
> > talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem with me years
> > ago but I think I have brought him around over time so that he no
> > longer "takes it personal."
> >
> > With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> > of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> > lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> > of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> > nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
>
> Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in the style
> *they* want?

That's fine, so long as you are not required to reply.  And so long as you 
don't want the discussion to remain vaguely on track.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161417

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:54:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:

>> Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in 
>> the style *they* want?

> That's fine, so long as you are not required to reply.  And so 
> long as you don't want the discussion to remain vaguely on 
> track.

And, so long as you _know_ what that desired style is. I've been 
trading emails with my nephew for years with nary a peep from 
him that he was annoyed by, of all things, my email reply style. 
Last night, I guess he had just had it "up to HERE" with me and 
my pompous internet posing!

I have to think about this a bit more because I am starting to 
have it UP TO HERE with him just writing this message! <g>

Thanks all. I knew I could find cooler heads here than in my 
family.

-- 
Bob Bernstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161416

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 08:31:29PM -0500, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> 
> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."

What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, how on
earth could it possibly be patronising?

I'm guessing your nephew isn't subscribed to any mailing lists.

Would I be correct in that he uses Windoze and outhouse as a mailer?

Of course I could be completely wrong, it is just a guess, but I am
intrigued as to how he could find inline responses annoying ... unless
... his client doesn't handle it properly.

I must admit reading mail from yahoo and outhouse mailers is difficult
at the best of times, and is perhaps one reason why top posting is
preferred.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161425

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:

>> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and 
>> annoying."

> What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, 
> how on earth could it possibly be patronising?

I haven't asked him yet, in the interest of not muddying still 
waters. I've been thinking about his "patronizing" response and 
I believe it is an objection to the obvious clarity and 
precision that inline responses afford. Clarity and precision 
are not exactly in the ascendancy as far as cultural values are 
concerned. It is thought much more important to be "passionate" 
and "authentic," In the introductory assay of a little book of 
his from 1928, _Sceptical Essays_, Russell said

"...it is undesirable to believe a proposition for which there 
is no ground whatever for supposing it true."

Nobody anymore has the least interest in such an approach to 
life, in fact, it is deemed dangerous and probably evil in most 
of our university English departments and beyond.

However Russell's little gem of a claim describes very 
accurately what is done on email lists devoted to computing 
topics. We want to know what is the case, and why. The vast 
majority of our fellow citizens *do* find a constant focus on 
those aims quite disconcerting in any context, and, very likely, 
"patronizing." They think "How dare you subject me to 
your rules of inference and standards of factuality! What sort 
of horrible person are you?"

> I'm guessing your nephew isn't subscribed to any mailing 
> lists.

I doubt it.

> Would I be correct in that he uses Windoze and outhouse as a 
> mailer?

He uses a gmail account with "Ipad Mail".

Oh well. Thanks Chris.

-- 
Bob Bernstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161429

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 16:40:05 UTC, Bob Bernstein  wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 
> >> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and 
> >> annoying."
> 
> > What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, 
> > how on earth could it possibly be patronising?
> 
> I haven't asked him yet, 
> 
> -- 
> Bob Bernstein

If I bottom posted at work, no-one would ever discover my replies. I occasionally interleave if a point by point response seems sensible, or if the joke only works that way

anxiousmac

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161438

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, anxiousmac@gmail.com wrote:

> If I bottom posted at work, no-one would ever discover my 
> replies. I occasionally interleave if a point by point 
> response seems sensible, or if the joke only works that way

Word dat. <g>

-- 
Bob Bernstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161451

Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>>> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
>>> annoying."
>
>> What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, how on
>> earth could it possibly be patronising?
>
> I haven't asked him yet, in the interest of not muddying still
> waters. I've been thinking about his "patronizing" response and I
> believe it is an objection to the obvious clarity and precision that
> inline responses afford.

It may be that inline replies are associated with the practice of
'fisking', which in conservative circles is interleaving derogative
comments with the target of derision's original content (usually a blog
post).

If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' pieces,
then I could understand not feeling comfortable when someone does that
in an email reply.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161464

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mart van de Wege wrote:

> It may be that inline replies are associated with the practice 
> of 'fisking' [...]

Yes. I stumbled into that mental association some time around 
3:30am ET, at which ungodly hour thoughts of fisking seem to 
rise of their own accord. <g>

> [...] which in conservative circles is interleaving 
> derogative comments with the target of derision's original 
> content (usually a blog post).

My inner conservative wants to ask, "Are not liberals smart 
enough to fisk each other's written work?"

My inner liberal wants to ask, "Why are conservatives such a 
picky, fussy, argumentative bunch?

I believe most fisking is done by conservatives, but much of 
that activity, and certainly the best of it, is aimed at their 
conservative comrade's work.

> If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' 
> pieces, then I could understand not feeling comfortable when 
> someone does that in an email reply.

Yes, point well taken.

-- 
Bob Bernstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161476

On 12/02/2015 12:19 PM, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mart van de Wege wrote:

>> If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' pieces,
>> then I could understand not feeling comfortable when someone does that
>> in an email reply.
>
> Yes, point well taken.

I suppose we can start to expect fisk offender lists soon? Maybe a 12 
step program?? "My name is RIC and I have fisked!" :) Ric


-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web