> I never imagined telling you or anyone off. I don't
> know how I come off
> sounding like that. I'm sorry for any offense I
> caused you.
It was gentle, inoffensive, and entirely justified (and probably not aimed just at me anyway?). No problems.
> I see your point, about having to explain
> everything. There must be a line drawn.
But a very long way on the "newbie" side, I suspect. It's very easy when answering a question to address the person who asked it and forget about all the others "listening in". Some of whom may never have been on the list before. I think we have to assume that any complete newbie can read back posts in the archives to get context of an on-going discussion, or things get silly. But any new material introduced should probably assume that at least some readers do not have whatever source is being referred to.
> Jeff's suggestion, whilst it shows he's
> sensitive to the needs of the moderatees (!?:),
> seems to be that we give
> newbies a dictionary or phrase book so that they can
> understand our private language.
It would be a step forwards, but I agree that us all remembering *not* use TLAs would be better. (After all, unless you're posting from a mobile phone, is it really that hard to type titles out in full?) Both, of course, covers us from all angles.
> We are, are we not, somewhat champions of the
> literary and (almost) thespianic arts?
Well, we try to be... some have more talent for this than others.
> >snip<
> > FS (the Fortunate Succession).
>
> And there was I thinking FS stood for something
> entirely different. :)
Context can be very important :)
(although I'm trying to think of a common alternative
meaning, and failing.)
Powered by hypermail