Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org!

Klarinet Archive - Posting 000327.txt from 2005/04

From: Tim Roberts <timr@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Clarinet Symposium
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:17:46 -0400

People, please! Learn how to use your e-mail programs properly. This
morning's digest contained TWO complete (and completely unnecessary)
repeat copies of Kenneth Shaw's excellent 770-line article on the
Clarinet Symposium. These copies make it nearly impossible to find the
actual "guts" of the messages (although, in this case, neither of these
messages actually had anything to say).

First, Aad Overeem posts the ENTIRE article with one new line:

>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:35:04 +0200
>To: <klarinet@-----.org>
>From: "Aad Overeem" <aad.overeem@-----.nl>
>Subject: Re: [kl] Clarinet Symposium
>
>Dear Kenneth,
>
>What a fantastic report! Thank you very much!
>
>All the best,
>
>Aad Overeem
>Netherlands
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Shaw, Kenneth R." <krshaw@-----.com>
>To: <klarinet@-----.org>
>Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:16 PM
>Subject: [kl] Clarinet Symposium
>
>CLARINET SYMPOSIUM ...
>

If he had stopped there, and removed the other 769 lines, this would
have been fine. But making an 800-line posting that has only ONE line
of new content is WRONG.

Then Carol Ames reponds with a complete copy of Aad's message, INCLUDING
Kenneth's article, and also adds only ONE line, although it is almost
impossible to find:

>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:01:51 -0400
>To: klarinet@-----.org
>From: Carol <carolames@-----.net>
>Subject: Re: [kl] Clarinet Symposium
>
>Aad Overeem wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Dear Kenneth,
>>>
>>>What a fantastic report! Thank you very much! < i agree! Wish i had known this when i wsstill playing,!
>>>
>>>All the best,
>>>
>>>Aad Overeem
>>>Netherlands
>>

Carol, it is impossible for us to determine what part is yours and what
part is Aad's here. It looks to us like everything in that message came
from Aad. When you are responding to a message, you need to SEPARATE
your response from the original message. Colors and fonts do not pass
through mailing lists. All we get is the text. The proper way to have
written it was like this:

> Dear Kenneth
>
>What a fantastic report! Thank you very much!

i agree! Wish i had known this when i wsstill playing,!

(Actually, the "proper" response would have used correct capitalization,
spelling, and punctuation, but that's a project for another day.)

The purpose of quoting a previous message is to give readers just enough
context to know what you are talking about. We all have copies of the
original messages (or we can get them from the archive). There is NO
POINT in duplicating a message in its entirety when replying (unless the
message is small). Delete everything but the sections you are
specifically addressing. Delete the signature. Delete the management
disclaimer. Delete the instructions from the mailing list.

People don't like to be corrected, so I fully expect to get some "so who
elected you to the e-mail police" responses from this. I did, I guess.
There are rules of etiquette and behavior in every social organization,
including Internet e-mail lists. If one is going to participate in
lists like this, and everyone has the right to do so, then one needs to
follow those rules, or at least understand what they are doing when they
break those rules.

--
- Tim Roberts, timr@-----.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org