On Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:10 -0500 (CDT)
David W Tamkin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> He reminded me of the AOLer on the list who, the first time he
> found a di- gest issue converted into a 2-Kb preview and a
> downloadable file, demanded that all digest issues be kept to 2Kb
> or shorter.]
I like this one. I have single posts to my lists that exceed 100K
(and yes, they are all original flat text).
> JCL gave reasons for keeping a list RTL, including:
>> 2) Private off-list discussions would be encouraged,
>> disenfranchising lurkers or non-thread participants.
> "Encouraged"? Not true; people have reply-to-all commands.
A minor leading detail:
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.
The justifying reason for this is that more replies (certainly more
than at present) will be simple off-list replies, and will thus
"disenfranchise" the rest of the list from that thread, even if the
original replying author had intended an on-list reply but had
accidentally hit 'r' instead of R/g/^R/<whatever_his_MUA_uses>. One
explanation as a supporting argument was (slightly paraphrased to
protect the guilty and privacy):
"If he really wants it private he can edit the To: header. I want
people to have to make an extra and special effort to move threads
off list. I want a barrier to exit for posts on the list."
Another argument centered around my phrasing of the list as
"occuring in my living room" (paraphrased again):
"If we're all in your living room we can all hear each other. If
you want to say something privatly you get up and go outside
which means you get up and move your sorry arse. Editing the To:
header is that same extra effort."
> Lawrence's other reasons might apply to that particular list, but
> that one just doesn't wash.
Perhaps the above clarifies.
> How are off-list discussions encouraged? Does a spirit appear
> over the shoulder of a member as he or she reads mail from the
> list, saying, "I'll give you $10.00 to reply privately instead of
The assertion here was the old saw about "Reply" being more
automatic/easy/unthinking than "Reply-To-All". In minor supporting
regard I know that my automatic habit is to always do replies with a
^R (ReplyToAll), (which is so ingrained in my fingers at this point
that I have to exercise concious thought to do otherwise. This
doesn't necessarily support their argument however.
And yes, my MUA supports Reply, ReplyToAll, and ListReply as
> An RTL list *dis*courages off-list discussions, no argument there
> (well, no argument about whether it's the case, but perhaps an
> argument about whether that's good or bad or mixed); but to say
> that an RTS list *en*courages them is not equivalent.
My original post was written concerning a discussion I had with one
of my lists on moving the list from RTL to RTS. They viewed RTS asn
__encouraging__ off-list traffic due to the ease of doing a Reply
versus a ReplyToAll, and they explicitly and fervently didn't want
that (some reasons stated above).
Admittedly its not an active "encouragment" -- there's no arm
twisting going on. But then making something "easier" can be viewed
as "encouraging it".
J C Lawrence email@example.com
The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows