| Re: A further follow up which may, or may not, be of interest |
Deamland |
| Morpheus (Morpheus@Deamland.org) |
2006/09/15 18:46 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Morpheus <Morpheus@Deamland.org>
Organization: Deamland
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.2.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.C130976D003CCC5DF0284530@news.easynews.com>
Subject: Re: A further follow up which may, or may not, be of interest
Newsgroups: alt.fan.smeagol
X-No-Archive: yes
Approved: The Sandman
References: <k7gqf2p41l4vm5qoq2v1nd39as2fibslnm@4ax.com> <060920060702313039%%+15$-Y-Not@here-and.there> <uintf25vglhfii51fjsovkkmi9d38imvk7@4ax.com> <lp1uf2djgdmp37q1ficmacn0k8uvl2kmbb@4ax.com> <kjslg21i1obgkrooe54ep25vrbn1pugtqs@4ax.com> <bjdmg2t8h95uscmr6kqpsupre5rsjpohj7@4ax.com>
Lines: 118
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:46:21 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.smeagol:725
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:27:37 -0700, smeagol wrote
(in article <bjdmg2t8h95uscmr6kqpsupre5rsjpohj7@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:43:22 GMT, johnny_fairview
> <johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Sep 2006 12:47:03 -0500, Ruby <whatsina@name.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:43:39 GMT, johnny_fairview
>>> <johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Snipped at length for getting to the point and loosing the balderdash
>>> posted by Y-Not.
>>>
>>
>> I remembered your point about snipping when I came across the following
>> article about failing to trim Usenet posts. It was written by James
>> Follett, a British novelist, and he starts off by wondering why some
>> posters in some threads repost the entire message to which they are
>> replying:
>>
>> "Why on earth do people continue to post all this crap?"
>>
>> And then Mr. Follett goes on to explain why such posters are incapable
>> of using usenet the way it was meant to be used:
>>
>> them in their entirety without bothering to trim a single word. They
>> help spread the word. Trimming a follow-up is quite beyond the cognitive
>> abilities of many.
>>
>> Actually the issue of correct posting to the Usenet was the subject of a
>> paper published by the Tavistock Institute about seven or eight years
>>
>> difficulty understanding the incredibly simple guidelines on posting is
>> philosophy. Many people are not being taught how to think. Arranging
>> thoughts logically does require training of the mind. At its simplest
>> this is writing a letter. A letter of complaint, for example, does
>> require a marshalling of thoughts, arranging of facts, and then pinning
>> them down on paper in a coherent manner.
>> Many are so ill-equipped for this task that large organizations now
>> encourage their customers to use telephones so that their operators can
>> logical sequence, and so on. And it saves return letter-writing costs or
>> ferreting on their part because their customers are now incapable of
>> supplying all the information necessary to resolve a problem.
>>
>> Even writing CVs is beyond the abilities of many causing them to resort
>> to professional CV writers. The authors cited a boiler-plate software
>> package for writing CVs! A discipline that requires little more than the
>> expression of a few facts and figures written on one side of a sheet of
>> sunk.
>> Good thinking requires good training. I was fortunate to have teachers
>> who trained my mind to work clearly and to arrange facts/ideas and to
>> brilliant thinker; the reason my mediocre cognitive ability has given me
>> a comfortable living is because so many are worse thinkers than I am.
>> The way society is being structured today ensures that many can muddle
>> their way through life without having to think too much. But when
>> Usenet, which has evolved over quarter of a century as a global forum
>> buggered. Not only are the conventions not understood, but the reasoning
>> behind the evolution of those conventions is not understood either.
>>
>> Firstly: trimming follow-ups to salient points does require the exercise
>> of editorial skill i.e. judgement, and judgement is either instinctive
>> or is acquired through training. Philosophy is the only practical tool
>> to apply that training. Secondly: actually answering a specific point
>> within a post and focussing on that point also requires a trained mind.
>> Confronted with these seemingly insuperable obstacles, the untrained
>> just top-post. Someone else can figure out what I mean."
>>
>> Conventions in communication are essential, particular so with Usenet
>> that consists of millions of people world-wide subscribing to around
>> 100,000 newsgroups on an equal number of subjects. For it to work
>> depends on the observation of protocols. The essential protocols that
>> control distribution are imbedded in the headers of a post and not
>> therefore understanding rests with the users.
>>
>> To ensure that the majority derive the greatest enjoyment and benefit
>> from the Usenet a few simple conventions exist. They are not difficult
>> to understand or follow if one takes a little trouble and is prepared to
>> one author but many readers therefore the majority should be always be
>> considered.
>> Another advantage is that mastery of those conventions enables one to
>> move with confidence from newsgroup to newsgroup and converse with the
>> world.
>> The Usenet is a remarkable tool that is worthy of respect rather than
>> the consequences of such muddle-headed thinking."
>>
>> A very erudite commentary on one of the major failings of numerous
>> repost it in its entirety in a follow-up?
>>
>>> -)
>>
>> Johnny
>>
>> johnny
>> (change lightvision to fairview)
>
> How do you--------------e do not snip?
>
> -g
>
message snipped for brevity.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|
|