[ Well, I was just about to send this message, when Digest #187 hit. Small world, eh? ;-) ]
> Subject: Re: Glorantha Digest V1 #168, the Alex special...
> There's one problem with Alex's mode of Digest reading...
> It's batch mode...
Actually, the trouble is that reading the Digest _isn't_ batch mode. If I spent my (these days occassional) Personal Appearences in the Yoonie reading and writing mail, it would cut right down on all the other goofing off I do during same. So I largely refrain.
> You receive a couple of issues
> at a time, compose all your separate replies, and they
> then get sent of all at once, reducing the number of times
> you have to dial in...
I do? This is all news to me, Henk. No, my net access is almost always Live and Online, though my reading of, and writing to, the Digest isn't.
This is partly an artifact of the digest format, ironically enough. mailtool, the least bad of all X mailers, doesn't handle digests at all well, so I might as well trundle home with them and read them on my (t)rusty Mac. And when I get round to uploading the replies, I dash them all more-or-less together. Hey, at least it (hopefully) avoids the "Alex said in RQ-ID-2356 (and 2361 ...)" effect that might otherwise result from attention-span timeout.
If anyone has any _serious_ objection to the Alex Special effect (and approximations thereto), I could spread them out a tad more, on an arbitary basis, but what good does that do anyone? If one were of the opinion that my posting are all junk, they're all lined up handily for the Delete key (even without a decent undigester). Unless you're Peter Metcalfe, that is.
I ask Loren to expound on his experience with the g.r.a.s.s. list;
Henk tries to send me into an infinite loop:
> Loren mentions the evidence: His experience with the GRASS list.
Yes, yes, yes, but he didn't say why it was _this_ difference between the two lists that accounted for the perceived difference in signal-to- noise, etc. As opposed to, as I suggested, say, Quality of Contributor, or Flameworthiness of Topic. Which is what I was inviting him (or anyone else) to do.
> What Loren mentions specifically in item 3. was a *design* feature
> of the Daily...
I don't think you can (at least with a straight face) tell me that Quality of Discussion is a "design feature" of a mail-server. Or at least, not without telling me _why_ you think it would (and does, as you claim) achieve this effect.
> 5. Moderator's Privilige.
I know about 5 (really 0, I think), and don't argue with it for a moment. But if Loren's going to go into his (other) reasons, I don't see why discussing them further should be thought outre'.
I don't suggest that Digesting is All Bad; it does at least mean that one's mailbox looks only moderately inundated if one has ignored it for a while.
Just about worked out mail filters, moving on the mail-de-digesters, Alex.
Powered by hypermail