[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Courtesy [ was: Re: Re Pinacosaurus (was How Did Hadrosaurs Survive?) ]
Dann Pigdon wrote (responding to me)
>> P.S. It is always a good idea to "cc" everyone who received the message to
>> which you are replying, as a courtesy.
>Actually, no it's not. If you sent a message to the list, you'll receive
>a reply from the list. There's nothing quite as annoying (or redundant)
>as getting two copies of the same email at the same time.
Actually, yes it is a good idea. Many of us, for personal reasons, recieve
the dinosaur list in digest format. Most discussions on the dinosaur list
proceed as a discussion, rather than as discrete, self-contained posts; in such
an arena, a delay of a one day or more involved in recieving the digest
inhibits communication. Notice that I am responding to your post after 15 DAYS,
because I didn't know you had responded! :)
Some of us do not have the time to run through the list every day
(especially on the two cumbersome e-mail programs I use) in order to figure out
which posts might be in response to our posts on subthreads in which we are a
participant. For example, the thread on "hadrosaur survival" encompassed a
number of high-volume sub-discussions, all of which appeared under the same
subject header. I was a part of only one of these, and I missed quite a few
comments, including the one to which I was responding, because I was not "cc-
ed." Even using the handy-dandy web archeive once or twice a week to catch up
on threads I might be interested in takes a significant period of time, which I
often must invest on other things (such as science).
It could certainly be construed as rude to post a response to someone and
explicitely not include the person whose words you are addressing, or who has
been an active participant in the discussion. It is the electronic equivalent
of ignoring someone. To anticipate a possible rejoinder: expecting your
respondee to devote a (sometimes significant) part of their scant time to scour
the list for possible responses to their posts makes some fairly strong claims
on their personal time. Surely clicking on the message and hitting the "trash"
hotkey takes less time and effort? If you do not recieve the list as a digest,
you must routinely "clean house" in your e-mail anyway, to deal with the
tremendous volume of posts, no?
I honestly don't mean to sound snarky. I have grown weary of checking the
archives and finding responses to posts I made months previously. Or worse, I
get a response to a response to one of my posts, and I am completely lost and
will be so until I can check the next day's digest to see what I've missed in
my own conversation. I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude or anything. I
remember having to go through and filter out all the duplicate messages I used