Talk:email conventions
Archived Tiki forum discussion for email conventions. Original authors, UTC times, and post IDs are retained below.
email conventions (Tiki thread #3576)
email conventions
pycyn · 2005-01-12 00:11 UTC · Tiki post #3578 (reply to #3576)
wrote: <<On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:03:03PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > A>The program appears to be Yahoo Mail and that does not appear to be > an adaptation of any other mail program. It also does not appear to > have within itself any way to change the quoting convention.
If you wouldn't mind trying the instructions at:
http://mailformat.dan.info/config/yahoo.html
including the switching to the plain editor and then mailing me that way, I'd appreciate it. If you really hate it so much you can't do it, fine, but I'd like to at least prove that it can be done.>>
Thanks. The regular Yahoo guides do fail to mention a lot of this stuff. As long as it is here, I have no real objection to using it -- in spite of its being (and having been since the early eighties) a particularly bad quoting convention (mainly because after step three it become impossible to keep track of who is who, but also because of the waste of space and three other reasons that I forget. Have you really never heard of The RAND Corp?) I see that I now
have NO quote markers. Hmmm!email conventions
pycyn · 2005-01-12 00:12 UTC · Tiki post #3579 (reply to #3576)
to! --- Robin Lee Powell <[email protected]> wrote:
The early stuff is vcovered by the reply to the later post.
> > D> It is not clear to me why complaints and > accurate comments about > > your systems are interdicted while your > comments about others are not. > > Because I do this for a living, so I speak from > an authority you do not, > for one thing. For another, because as I said > I work my ass off on > lojban.org infrastructure, and I demand respect > as a response.
It is probably because you do it for a living that many of your comments are inappropriate: you know how to work the angles but do not have to live with these critters on a day to day basis, getting by on only what dribbles of instructions some one who does it for a living sees fit to pass on (the Yahoo Help files is a classic example in a small way) You also obviously know where to go when you need more information; this is not something generally known (and again I thank you for leading me to what was needed in this case. And I have to say that the Tiki instructions have gotten better: I can't remember the last time I had a problem that did not have an answer somewhere -- not always where I would have expected it, to be sure -- in the instruction pages. Thanks again.)
> It occurs to me that by "defective systems", > you may have meant my style > of quoting, rather than my computer systems, in > which case I am slightly > less annoyed.
I did indeed mean the stye of quoting, going from the RAND study of probably 20 years ago now -- which had no impact at all that I can see.
> > You insult a reasonably good program and > insist on the superiority of > > an inferior one > > What the *HELL* are you talking about? I don't > know what program you > are using, so I cannot have insulted it, and I > have yet to reccomend any > other programs, because you haven't given me > enough information to do > so. > > (somewhere there is a RAND study on how > quotes ought to be done) > > I have no idea what RAND is. Citation or URL?
The study came out shortly after my friend got to be assistant director of the Ergonomics Section at RAND, so I'd say about 1985, give or take a year. She didn't do it but she did approve it and sent me a prepub, which I have since lost. I don't remember either title or RD number and only fragments of the content.
> > I am not overjoyed with the system I have but > it is what I have and I > > am stuck with it for now. > > No, you are not, and if you'd listen to what I > say and answer me I would > have already suggested several alternatives.
All of which, alas, depended -- until the one you sent later -- on knowing what I was dealing with and finding on it certain menus (which either don't exist on Yahoo or go by different names and are filed in places I would never think to look -- I still have not found Tools.) I have been giving you the best answers I had available, sorry that they were not -- until finally -- of much use. > > > E> Same back atcha, fella. I have never > knbowingly insulted your > > work; > > "defective systems" isn't an insult? > > > F> You set up the quotation convention? > Shame on you. > > When I read "defective systems", I assumed that > you mean my *computer* > systems, i.e. lojban.org.
Hell, no. Of the sites I have to deal with from time to time, Lojban is about as good as any -- including (or even especially) those for computer haard- or soft-ware companies (which are slicker, usually, but much less helpful). Although I admit I have a residuual memory of you or someone recommending Linux over Windows, to which my only comments is that while Windows occasionally doesn't work and its security leaks like a sieve, it never destroyed 7 gigs of harddrive the way
that Suse Linux did.email conventions (Tiki thread #3577)
email conventions
pycyn · 2005-01-12 00:11 UTC · Tiki post #3577 (reply to #0)
B> Yes C>because then they get included in the quotes (i.e., have a solid bar running along their left side. D> It is not clear to me why complaints and accurate comments about your systems are interdicted while your comments about others are not. You insult a reasonably good program and insist on the superiority of an inferior one (somewhere there is a RAND study on how quotes ought to be done) and then get all het up about it if I suggest that I am disinclined to agree with yourt assessment. I am not overjoyed with the system I have but it is what I have and I am stuck with it for now. I have offered several ways to improve it -- from your point of view -- but these have been rejected. So I offerred an alternate solution, as reasonable as yours in the context. E> Same back atcha, fella. I have never knbowingly insulted your work; I have told you when "improving" something rendered it less useful -- and have said where the problems were. And you have always corrected them promptly. But you miust by now realize that even when it is your hard work it is likely to have some problems. Don't shit on the messenger. F> You set up the quotation convention? Shame on you.
Robin Lee Powell <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted > material marked off with a solid line along the side.
A>I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you'd like to start by telling me what mail program you're using to read these mails?
B>You *are* reading them as mails, right?
> The flaw in this is that it does not allow me to make comments > directly attached to the quoted passage being commented upon,
C>Why don't you just insert your comments by adding lines in the middle, like everybody else dose?
> hence the top comments. I can move them to the bottom if you would > like that better.
Good god no.
> As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became > the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly > inclined to convert to it, especially since the only person who > regularly reads what I write has never complained about it.
If you mean xorxes, trust me, it annoys him too.
> Perhaps you all would consider getting your defective systems upgraded > to something more 21st century.
D>I've already warned you about this, at least half a dozen times. I use, run, and operate computers for my livelyhood. You are the only person who makes insulting comments about the systems I run and the programs I use. If you like, I will *happily* save you from having to not deal with my "defective" systems, by globally blocking you from using lojban.org resources.
E>Stop insulting my hard work. Tell me *exactly* what you are having problems with, in private e-mail, with clearly stated issues, preferrably including screenshots.
You cannot *imagine* the work I put into lojban.org, and you are the only person who consistently complains, no matter what I do, and yet I still *TRY* to help you, and I *try* to understand what your issues are.
F>If you insult my systems again, I will cease communicating with you, even by proxy, and this time it will be permanent.
-Robin
> Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?. > > You top post. > > You don't quote properly (using >). > > > My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so > > many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to > > figure who said what. > > Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it. > > > Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you > > want? > > We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is > impossible for the rest of us to read. > > How many times do we have to tell you this? > > -Robin > >
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
