Ah, now I catch Declan's trick
He posted a comment the other day about my sending private notes was unwaranted in responce to comments made on the public list. I was wondering why he got them at all because previously he hadn't been receiving them. Well today I made the same mistake, I didn't look at the header until after I'd sent it. Then I realized that Declan is now sending these messages not only to the list, but to me privately (something he says is against netiquette?), something he wasn't doing before. The private messages bubble to the top first so I reply to them. I was also wondering why I was getting multiple copies of his inbound too. So, if Declan would please forward the responce to his public post back to the list (and send his commentary w/o me cc:'ed specificaly please) we can proceed with a reasonably civil debate until he finds something else to play with instead of the topic at hand. ____________________________________________________________________ One World, One Web, One Program - Microsoft Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer - Hitler The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is typically muddled. Netiquette says one should not send one message to someone privately and *the identical text* to the list in a different message. It leaves the recipient unsure about whether the thought was a private communication or not. This is what Jim has done twice this week. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to do a reply-to-all when engaging in list conversations (provided that the CC line is not too long, etc.), and that is what I have done and am doing. -Declan On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 04:08:29PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
He posted a comment the other day about my sending private notes was unwaranted in responce to comments made on the public list.
I was wondering why he got them at all because previously he hadn't been receiving them. Well today I made the same mistake, I didn't look at the header until after I'd sent it. Then I realized that Declan is now sending these messages not only to the list, but to me privately (something he says is against netiquette?), something he wasn't doing before. The private messages bubble to the top first so I reply to them. I was also wondering why I was getting multiple copies of his inbound too.
So, if Declan would please forward the responce to his public post back to the list (and send his commentary w/o me cc:'ed specificaly please) we can proceed with a reasonably civil debate until he finds something else to play with instead of the topic at hand.
____________________________________________________________________
One World, One Web, One Program - Microsoft
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer - Hitler
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 07:42 PM 2/14/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The below is typically muddled.
Netiquette says one should not send one message to someone privately and *the identical text* to the list in a different message. It leaves the recipient unsure about whether the thought was a private communication or not. This is what Jim has done twice this week.
It is, however, perfectly acceptable to do a reply-to-all when engaging in list conversations (provided that the CC line is not too long, etc.), and that is what I have done and am doing.
Netiquette is somewhat conflicted about this - especially when replying to a noisy list somebody isn't on, including their name in the To: or Cc: tends to drag them in to a large discussion that meanders off onto other topics. Bcc: is one way to avoid this problem; Reply-To: is another. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 07:03 PM 2/14/01 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote, quoting me:
It is, however, perfectly acceptable to do a reply-to-all when engaging in list conversations (provided that the CC line is not too long, etc.), and that is what I have done and am doing.
Netiquette is somewhat conflicted about this - especially when replying to a noisy list somebody isn't on, including their name in the To: or Cc: tends to drag them in to a large discussion that meanders off onto other topics. Bcc: is one way to avoid this problem; Reply-To: is another.
Fair enough, this may be one area where reasonable people can disagree. In this case, though, particulars count: Choate is not known for his reticence, and has never complained about the practice, which is common in these parts. -Declan
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate