[bct] Messages with or without all the threads attached

  • From: "Neal Ewers" <neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:32:26 -0600

First a problem that will be hard to solve in any case, and then a
question about what people want with respect to the subject.

Problem.  One reason list messages get overwhelming is this.  Some
people read their messages in the order in which they arrive and some
read them by reading the most recent message first.  I have found that
either way can cause a problem.  For example, let's say I read mine from
newest to oldest.  So I reply to a message and then, as I read back
through the messages, I realize that that reply has already been made.
On the other hand, when I read them as they arrive, I reply to a message
and as I read the newer ones, I realize, once again, that someone has
already made the same reply.  I'm not sure how to get around that
problem.  But let's proceed to the question that Larry raises below.

Do people want messages with all the previous messages attached at the
bottom as people reply one to another.  Or, would people rather have
only the message of the current writer with none of the other messages
appended?

There is no right or wrong answer.

Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of LARRY SKUTCHAN
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:09 AM
To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bct] Re: Digest


It would really be ideal if people would delete the unnecessary part of
an original message when they reply to it, but that ain't gonna' happen.


>>> fb-oe@xxxxxxx Friday, February 17, 2006 11:01:22 AM >>>
Hey, guys, I'm now using the digest form and it is much more efficient.
I would like to suggest something:  How about not replying to messages,
start a new one instead because, that way, using digest, I don't believe
you would get the string of prior messages on that topic again.  It's
time-wasting to have to scroll through them, as you have already read
them.  Thanks. 
Beth




Other related posts: