Re: Just FYI

Subject: Re: Just FYI
From: John Glenn <sfarmh1 -at- SCFN -dot- THPL -dot- LIB -dot- FL -dot- US>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 06:55:35 -0400

Iain wrote
"Get real. Some people actually write for a living, and the
tools they use are important to them. Where else would you
actually find people who are knowledgeable about workarounds
for Word's Master/subdocument deficiencies? You won't find
them on word mailing lists or conferencing systems. Word
users don't normally need to use that feature, so they avoid
it."
I STARTED to respond (privately) ''Try WORD-PC,'' but then I
remembered that _I_ tried WORD-PC ... and unsub'ed after a
week or two due to the level of expertise and a few posters
who were unable to RT*M.
I also remembered that I got valuable Masterdoc work-around
information from TECHWR-L, not WORD-PC.

NONE-THE-LESS, we can improve the posting process by
1. checking the archives before asking the generic Q
2. posting As to private e-addresses (vs. the list). I am
not so vain to think my A to a simple Q is ''list-worthy''
even if it IS valuable to the person asking the Q. (Anyway,
if my A is so {deleted} good, the originator can post a
summary of responses.)
3. not replying with the originator's entire message as part
of our post (I've seen the original Q and an A included in
a reply)
4. elect to receive TECHWR-L in message - vs. digest - form
to make it easy to DELete unwanted topic messages.

HOW TO TELL IF SOMETHING IS RELEVANT? Seems posting volume
is a good indicator.

TECHWR-L is my primary source of professional exchange - I
appreciate Eric's list maintenance and understand his
occasional frustration. But, sports fans, we CAN have it
both ways (extended single-topic communications AND a
shorter list of incoming mail) if we use some common sense &
courtsey.
Your kind comments are welcome if directed to
sfarmh1 -at- scfn -dot- thpl -dot- lib -dot- fl -dot- us

john glenn <sfarmh1 -at- scfn -dot- thpl -dot- lib -dot- fl -dot- us>
====================================================
...do not make a statement that cannot be easily
understood on the grounds that it will be understood
eventually. (Hillel)


Previous by Author: Age work-around
Next by Author: Re: Intranets - Don't go there?
Previous by Thread: Re: Just FYI
Next by Thread: Re: Just FYI


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads