List etiquette (was: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak)

G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl
Wed Nov 7 20:55:43 UTC 2001


I agree with you that flaming should be replaced... with subtile humor?
By the way, we do not see it as an insult to be compared with children: 

At MIT they even have a LIFELONG KINDERGARTEN.





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary McGovern [mailto:garywork at lineone.net]
> Sent: woensdag 7 november 2001 21:28
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: List etiquette (was: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak)
> 
> 
> Except there's normally 60 messages when I check my Squeak 
> email and today
> there was only 15, some of which were just flames. I need 
> this list as a
> learning tool and can't afford it to degenerate.
> 
> I think it was out of order to call Dan Ingalls merely 
> Ingalls and also out
> of order to say that Squeak is for manipulating children, I 
> can accept a bit
> tongue in cheek talk but I don't think that was.
> 
> Regards,
> Gary
> (PS Tonight I've hired the movie Hannibal ;-))
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:26 PM
> Subject: RE: List etiquette (was: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak)
> 
> 
> > Ted Kaehler said once: "Squeakland is like a zoo, except we 
> put you right
> in
> > with the animals.."
> > Are philosophical stenguns not allowed in this zoo or are 
> the old animals
> to
> > tired?
> > Come on guys and dolls, we all love Squeak, so lets feed it to the
> children
> > of all ages on all platforms: yes Bill, yours too...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gary McGovern [mailto:garywork at lineone.net]
> > > Sent: woensdag 7 november 2001 19:53
> > > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > Subject: Re: List etiquette (was: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak)
> > >
> > >
> > > That's quite right to mention netiquette. Insults, bad
> > > manners and flaming
> > > spirals don't do anyone any good except the perpetrator of
> > > psychological
> > > mind games.
> > >
> > > I think a public apology is due from Justin to Alan Kay, Dan
> > > Ingalls and the
> > > active people on the list, not for having different ideas but
> > > for the bad
> > > manners and insults. Nothing has been accomplished except for less
> > > constructive participation on the list and bad feelings.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bert Freudenberg" <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de>
> > > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:10 AM
> > > Subject: List etiquette (was: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak)
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Gary Fisher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The "problem" you're seeing is caused not by malicious
> > > behavior but by
> > > the
> > > > > way many email programs handle replies in html
> > > >
> > > > Those problems can easily be overcome by a little common sense:
> > > >
> > > > * Don't send HTML mails to the list.
> > > > * Don't include everything in a reply, just so much to
> > > retain the context.
> > > >
> > > > If you were never given a proper introduction how to
> > > politely use this
> > > > medium, it would be a great idea to study the "Mailing List
> > > Etiquette",
> > > > especially the section about formatting and quoting
> > > (attached below).
> > > >
> > > > -- Bert
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
> > > >
> > > > Are there any important formatting considerations?
> > > >
> > > > Visual formatting is very important in a textual medium
> > > like email.  If
> > > > your postings are poorly formatted, they will be hard 
> to read, and
> > > > people will tire of them quickly.  As a result, fewer
> > > people will read
> > > > what you write to the end, and many will begin to skip 
> your posts
> > > > entirely.
> > > >
> > > > Most importantly, learn to use the enter (or return) key on your
> > > > keyboard.  The video display width of many network users is
> > > limited to
> > > > 80 columns, and text which wraps beyond that length is
> > > quite a bit more
> > > > difficult to read.  Since your text may be indented 
> when quoted by
> > > > others you should keep your lines to a maximum length
> > > somewhere below
> > > > that point -- around 70 characters is a good target.  
> There are of
> > > > course exceptions, such as wide tables, and long URLs, but
> > > the rule is
> > > > to keep it well under 80.
> > > >
> > > > Be careful if you use a program which wraps your posts 
> when you send
> > > > them.  If you wrap at a wider column than it does, you may
> > > end up with
> > > > alternating long and short lines where it wraps one or two
> > > words from
> > > > each long line, but fails to join them to the next.  If you
> > > know that
> > > > your software operates this way, you may be best off to 
> simply write
> > > > each paragraph as one long line, and let it do all the 
> wrapping.  Be
> > > > very sure that this is the case though, as postings that
> > > come through
> > > > with really long, single line paragraphs are also 
> annoying to read.
> > > >
> > > > Wrapping at a considerably narrower margin, such as 40 
> characters is
> > > > also more difficult to read, as one must page down much 
> more often.
> > > > However, don't be afraid to use blank lines to separate
> > > your paragraphs,
> > > > and do break your text into paragraphs.  In fact, 
> keeping paragraphs
> > > > fairly short is also easier to read; around ten lines is a
> > > good upper
> > > > limit.
> > > >
> > > > Be careful when using tabs for indenting, as they will display
> > > > differently on other platforms.  Also, avoid control 
> characters and
> > > > other fancy visual effects which are likely platform 
> specific.  When
> > > > composing (and reading) mail, you're best to stick with a
> > > mono-spaced
> > > > font (as opposed to proportionally spaced), and avoid 
> anything other
> > > > than the most basic text you can use to get your message across.
> > > >
> > > > When replying, should I quote the previous message?
> > > >
> > > > Most certainly.  You should always provide some context to
> > > your replies
> > > > so that people who may not have been following the thread
> > > closely, or
> > > > who have other things on their minds will easily be able to
> > > determine
> > > > what you're talking about.
> > > >
> > > > However, when quoting, be very careful to edit the quoted
> > > sections down
> > > > to the bare minimum of text needed to maintain the 
> context for your
> > > > reply.  There is very little on a mailing list that is 
> more annoying
> > > > than paging through a few pages of quoted text only to read
> > > a few lines
> > > > at the end.  Also be careful that you clearly indicate what
> > > text you're
> > > > quoting (as opposed to what you're writing), and if
> > > possible, cite the
> > > > author of the original text.
> > > >
> > > > If your mail program wants to attach the whole message
> > > you're replying
> > > > to on the end of your replies, please do not let it do this
> > > if you can
> > > > possibly avoid it.  It is a good thing to include excerpts
> > > from previous
> > > > messages with your replies to maintain a logical flow of
> > > discussion, but
> > > > it is almost always a bad thing to include the entire text
> > > of a message
> > > > being replied to, be it at the start or end of your reply.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list