List-serv () conventions& mechanisms

[Guest guest]

Some notes on conventions commonly used in forums like this, to help

clarify threads of discussion, and some rationale for using them.

 

1) Differentiate your comments from quotations from others

 

When writing a reply to another message or thread of messages, it helps to

clearly demarcate the quotations from other messages, so it's clear what

you are writing as opposed to what others wrote that you are referring to.

Sometimes in reading long messages, one has trouble keeping track of what

the author is adding when he/she includes passages from others, especially

when they are longish.

 

The software and most email programs ( " programmes " for you

Europeans) have a built in way of helping this. One begins by using the

function " REPLY " which creates a template message from you with contents of

the message you're replying to with all the text marked off by " > "

characters at the start of each line. One can then edit down the original

message to the passages one wants to focus on, and add or intersperse one's

own text, which, by convention, does NOT have the '> " beginning each line.

 

When doing this with deep threads, you'll note that the " > " markers can

become " >> " or " >>> " etc., reflecting imbedded quoted passages. This may

take some getting used to, but when done edited judiciously it makes clear

exactly who said what.

 

2) Identify sources of quotations

 

The above mentioned " REPLY " mechanism also automatically supplies a reply

header to the text you are replying to, in the form:

At 02:20 PM 1/23/04 -0000, you wrote:

followed by the original text with the '> " markers. (Note I'm using another

convention here, by indenting what I'm quoting (the reply-header template).

This can be used clearly, and we all recognize it from the convention used

in published books and papers. But indentation is not advised for long

passages in email format, as line-breaks get introduced by the email

protocol which makes indented quotations, longer then one (relatively

short) line ,messy.

 

In a context with a lot of people participating, it is even better to edit

the reply header as in:

At 02:20 PM 1/23/04 -0000, <name of author> wrote:

The " you wrote " is more appropriate when one person is simply replying to

one other person's email directly.

 

Also, in addition to (or instead of) <time & date>, as in the template

shown above, one could use the message number provided in the

system, which makes it even easier find the original message.

 

3) Avoid re broadcasting unnecessary (and long) inclusions

 

As one quickly discovers, when using the REPLY function to the " digest "

form of message (all the message for one day packaged up into one message),

you get a huge amount of text in your template message (reply), when

usually you only want to refer to some specific passage. This takes some

editing to get down to just that, i.e. some work. Hence an advantage to

opting to receive individual messages rather than the digest, if you don't

mind lots in you in-box.

 

4) Titles -- the use of " Re: " and " threads "

 

A new topic should have a title ( ) without a prefacing " Re: " . (An

example is this message I'm writing.) A reply then, as seen in the REPLY

mechanism, automatically gets titled " Re: <original title> " .

If you reply to a message, and it was a reply itself, your message goes one

level deeper in the " thread " , which is a hierarchical structure than can be

exploited to help us around this rather large flow of messages.

 

If you can find and click on the item " Thread " in the blue status/menu bar

presented both at the top and the bottom of the message list (in the

" message " page), you will see the messages sorted out by thread, with

indentation showing the sub-threads of replies. For instance, if replies

were always made directly to the message one wishes to reply to, and using

the automatic REPLY function rather than just composing a new message

( " POST " ) and using a " Re: " title, then all the " What is Qi " messages would

appear in a single thread / hierarchy.

 

5) Why all this complication? (or: " I'm an acupuncturist, not a computer

scientist " )

 

Some of what we're communicating here is relatively informal, and doesn't

need a lot of structure. Some of it, though, is will become something of a

research data bank, in which case it will be useful to be able to use the

hierarchical thread structure when going back to dig out information one

may later want to look at in more depth. Especially as there doesn't appear

to be a " SEARCH " function in this setup to be able to search message

contents.

 

Example: a year from now, I may have occasion to treat summer time

dependent edema, or prostate conditions, and I vaguely recall the topic was

touched on here back in early 2004. Going back and finding the

information quickly, and finding it somewhat organized, and finding out who

to contact about possible newer information -- this would be good! This is

one of the values of this sort of forum.

 

Another, related, usage: Sometimes one notices a thread one hadn't followed

from the beginning (e.g. when coming on as a new participant). Sometimes

it's useful to go back to the origin and review the thread to see what

aspects have already been touched upon, for instance so as not to repeat

information already offered.

 

6) Illustration -- personal anecdote:

 

I participate in another listserv (the technical name for the

mechanism) which is used largely by people in cutting-edge aspects of

computer and other technologies. These folks are very skilled at computer

stuff and follow the listserv conventions closely. (Some of the people in

that forum are the inventors of the Internet, email, and the listserv

function.) In that context I have been able to reliably trace threads

backwards. For instance, a recent thread on " Scientists vs Theologians " the

topic of medicine was brought up and I was motivated to add some comments.

However, not wanting to make too big a fool of myself, I first traced the

thread all the way back. It turned out that the topic of acupuncture and OM

had been rather pointedly discussed earlier, which gave me even more to

write about and put it in a context (who was clearly biased, who was

interested in discussion, etc.).

 

Others in that group are in the biological sciences, one is the son of a

doctor, and many of them, although skilled in their own fields, demonstrate

a sort of scientific fundamentalism vs topics like alternative medicine.

(e.g. " The whole Chinese is purely fictitional, because their culture is

authority based. " or " Belief in acupuncture is pure placebo -- it's not

evidence-based, just religion. " ) So it turned out rather like the scenario

put forward by Ken Rose of how can you explain Qi to congressmen -- an

exercise in discussion and persuasion before people coming from a very

different outlook.

[Guest guest]

THIS IS A TEST

[Guest guest]

Thank you Chris for your post. An auto post goes out each month

giving similar guidelines for users. Although yours is alot more

detailed and knowledgeable. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's

attention. It helps the groups flow if everyone abides by these minor

rules of internet use.

 

Attilio

 

<@w...> wrote:

> Some notes on conventions commonly used in forums like this, to help

> clarify threads of discussion, and some rationale for using them.

>

> 1) Differentiate your comments from quotations from others

>

> When writing a reply to another message or thread of messages, it

helps to

> clearly demarcate the quotations from other messages, so it's clear

what

> you are writing as opposed to what others wrote that you are

referring to.

> Sometimes in reading long messages, one has trouble keeping track

of what

> the author is adding when he/she includes passages from others,

especially

> when they are longish.

>

> The software and most email programs ( " programmes " for

you

> Europeans) have a built in way of helping this. One begins by using

the

> function " REPLY " which creates a template message from you with

contents of

> the message you're replying to with all the text marked off by " > "

> characters at the start of each line. One can then edit down the

original

> message to the passages one wants to focus on, and add or

intersperse one's

> own text, which, by convention, does NOT have the '> " beginning

each line.

>

> When doing this with deep threads, you'll note that the " > " markers

can

> become " >> " or " >>> " etc., reflecting imbedded quoted passages.

This may

> take some getting used to, but when done edited judiciously it

makes clear

> exactly who said what.

>

> 2) Identify sources of quotations

>

> The above mentioned " REPLY " mechanism also automatically supplies a

reply

> header to the text you are replying to, in the form:

> At 02:20 PM 1/23/04 -0000, you wrote:

> followed by the original text with the '> " markers. (Note I'm using

another

> convention here, by indenting what I'm quoting (the reply-header

template).

> This can be used clearly, and we all recognize it from the

convention used

> in published books and papers. But indentation is not advised for

long

> passages in email format, as line-breaks get introduced by the email

> protocol which makes indented quotations, longer then one

(relatively

> short) line ,messy.

>

> In a context with a lot of people participating, it is even better

to edit

> the reply header as in:

> At 02:20 PM 1/23/04 -0000, <name of author> wrote:

> The " you wrote " is more appropriate when one person is simply

replying to

> one other person's email directly.

>

> Also, in addition to (or instead of) <time & date>, as in the

template

> shown above, one could use the message number provided in the

Group

> system, which makes it even easier find the original message.

>

> 3) Avoid re broadcasting unnecessary (and long) inclusions

>

> As one quickly discovers, when using the REPLY function to

the " digest "

> form of message (all the message for one day packaged up into one

message),

> you get a huge amount of text in your template message (reply), when

> usually you only want to refer to some specific passage. This takes

some

> editing to get down to just that, i.e. some work. Hence an

advantage to

> opting to receive individual messages rather than the digest, if

you don't

> mind lots in you in-box.

>

> 4) Titles -- the use of " Re: " and " threads "

>

> A new topic should have a title ( ) without a

prefacing " Re: " . (An

> example is this message I'm writing.) A reply then, as seen in the

REPLY

> mechanism, automatically gets titled " Re: <original title> " .

> If you reply to a message, and it was a reply itself, your message

goes one

> level deeper in the " thread " , which is a hierarchical structure

than can be

> exploited to help us around this rather large flow of messages.

>

> If you can find and click on the item " Thread " in the blue

status/menu bar

> presented both at the top and the bottom of the message list (in the

> " message " page), you will see the messages sorted out by

thread, with

> indentation showing the sub-threads of replies. For instance, if

replies

> were always made directly to the message one wishes to reply to,

and using

> the automatic REPLY function rather than just composing a new

message

> ( " POST " ) and using a " Re: " title, then all the " What is Qi "

messages would

> appear in a single thread / hierarchy.

>

> 5) Why all this complication? (or: " I'm an acupuncturist, not a

computer

> scientist " )

>

> Some of what we're communicating here is relatively informal, and

doesn't

> need a lot of structure. Some of it, though, is will become

something of a

> research data bank, in which case it will be useful to be able to

use the

> hierarchical thread structure when going back to dig out

information one

> may later want to look at in more depth. Especially as there

doesn't appear

> to be a " SEARCH " function in this setup to be able to search

message

> contents.

>

> Example: a year from now, I may have occasion to treat summer time

> dependent edema, or prostate conditions, and I vaguely recall the

topic was

> touched on here back in early 2004. Going back and finding the

> information quickly, and finding it somewhat organized, and finding

out who

> to contact about possible newer information -- this would be good!

This is

> one of the values of this sort of forum.

>

> Another, related, usage: Sometimes one notices a thread one hadn't

followed

> from the beginning (e.g. when coming on as a new participant).

Sometimes

> it's useful to go back to the origin and review the thread to see

what

> aspects have already been touched upon, for instance so as not to

repeat

> information already offered.

>

> 6) Illustration -- personal anecdote:

>

> I participate in another listserv (the technical name for the

Group

> mechanism) which is used largely by people in cutting-edge aspects

of

> computer and other technologies. These folks are very skilled at

computer

> stuff and follow the listserv conventions closely. (Some of the

people in

> that forum are the inventors of the Internet, email, and the

listserv

> function.) In that context I have been able to reliably trace

threads

> backwards. For instance, a recent thread on " Scientists vs

Theologians " the

> topic of medicine was brought up and I was motivated to add some

comments.

> However, not wanting to make too big a fool of myself, I first

traced the

> thread all the way back. It turned out that the topic of

acupuncture and OM

> had been rather pointedly discussed earlier, which gave me even

more to

> write about and put it in a context (who was clearly biased, who was

> interested in discussion, etc.).

>

> Others in that group are in the biological sciences, one is the son

of a

> doctor, and many of them, although skilled in their own fields,

demonstrate

> a sort of scientific fundamentalism vs topics like alternative

medicine.

> (e.g. " The whole Chinese is purely fictitional, because their

culture is

> authority based. " or " Belief in acupuncture is pure placebo -- it's

not

> evidence-based, just religion. " ) So it turned out rather like the

scenario

> put forward by Ken Rose of how can you explain Qi to congressmen --

an

> exercise in discussion and persuasion before people coming from a

very

> different outlook.