[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Moderator, when?

Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>p.s. Feel free to flame me (privately, though... Mickey doesn't need
>this stuff cluttering up his list!);
        No, I think that this is something that needs to be addressed
publically. Sorry it isn't directly dino related, but it is important for
the functioning of the list. I don't mean to flame, but I will admit to
being more than a little torqued here.

Mickey wrote:
>Your first clue to that effect should have been the first line in Garrison's
>> On 20 Apr 97 15:42:00 EDT, www@cuinfo.cit.cornell.edu (ksjj@fast.net)
>> wrote:
        Sorry, Mickey, but that really isn't sufficient. I shouldn't have to
be tracking down "clues" to get necessary data off this list. I only have so
much time to play with the list at the expense of my responsibilities.
        That bit was afwully confusing, and I'll admit I wondered what it
meant. However, the accepted practice in *any* e-mail context I have ever
experienced is to *QUOTE* material, not just include a vague one-line
explanation at the top. If I wrote someone else's words in a paper and did
not use quotation marks, I would get my keyster kicked for plagerism. I
expect others to spend a bit more time elucidating exactly what is going on
in their messages.
        I have seen "X wrote" bars at the top of e-mails when the sender and
the writer are the same. Depending on what e-mail program you are using,
this could be purely accidental, especially when resending a message to
another recipient.
        It was especially confusing since the name and date header reads:
>>>>From: skeptix@cyberwarped.com
        Which is an e-mail address I have never heard before, but is not
verifiably not the e-mail address of one "karl". I do not know Garrison, I
cannot ever recall a posting by him, but I certainly do not associate
"skeptix@cyberwarped.com" with him (the folks at that address had *no* idea
what was going on, their theory was that "karl" used their address to torque
them). Perhaps if the message had been signed in some way by Mr. Hilliard,
the rest of the dinosaur list may have understood.
        In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the "X wrote" above
is not sufficient evidence), I will always assume that a posting is the
author's origional material, and was posted by the person signing the post.

UPSHOT: Please, people, use some form of quotation system*, attribute your
quotes, and maybe let us know who you are!

*You can use my system, {}, or Peter Buckholz's system {<>}     ;)
Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>Very, very few of you DINOSAUR list members actually read the message &
>noticed the headers,
        You have no evidence of this. Perhaps we all merely assumed that no
one would be so remiss in following the forms accepted for so long on this list.

>or did any research at all about what the origin of the message...
        As I state above, no evidence was given that it was not exactly what
it appeared to be, except for the anomalous "X wrote:" line. I'm sorry, but
I don't have all day to track things down because you couldn't be bothered
to include the required information.

>well, I guess it just goes to show how many folks
>actually apply scientific methodology in their normal lives, eh?
        Ok, you have gone too far. Back off, now. This brand of childish
counting coup has no place on the dinosaur list. If you feel the need to
assert your mental superiority, please do it someplace else. None of us are
impressed, and you are wasting our time.

>I'm a card-carrying skeptic and quite used to being criticized because I'm 
        Improper nettiquette should never be confused with being "right".
Mickey wrote:
>lingering let me try to dowse it once and for all.
        I don't think you spell this "dowse". I think that involves sticks...

      Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock TX 79409
      "The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity." - Unknown