Re[2]: Blah Blah Blah

["Walker, Arlen P" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>]

     In reply to Rob McMartin's flame on my earlier post. My final public
     reply on this issue is:

Well, Rob's reply wasn't a flame. It was a disagreement, though it's true
that the current trend on the net is to identify any disagreement as a
"flame." That automatically excuses one from having to think about the
points raised in it.

I'll say up front that I don't agree with Rob completely, some "forums of
communication" (whatever that means in this context) deserve to be shut
down. But the concept of chunking (to pick one of the targets) is hardly
among them.

Personally, I delete over 75% of the traffic on this list unread. Because I
think it's worthless? No, because it isn't applicable to me. I don't do on-
line help in any fashion, as one example, so any comments about it do me
little good. But it's a part of the profession.

Part (actually most) of what Bruce was complaining about is simply an
artifact of the process. When we write a comment on the subject, we don't
know that 20 other people are currently involved in writing the same
comment, so 20 copies show up on the list. But I'm also sure enough of
Murphy to know that if I refrain from commenting simply because someone
else will say what I want to say, the probability is real that everyone
else will come to the same conclusion, and no one will say it. So, given
the choices of several copies or none, I'll take several.

Do we waste time and space on this list? Of course. We're human; we can't
be coldly, mechanically efficient and remain effective for long. Speaking
for myself, I'd have left long ago if the list wasn't allowed to be human.

Got a problem with the "chaff?" Do what I do. Read the subject lines and
delete. I'll check my inbox and delete 20-30 messages at a crack. Will you
possibly miss something you might want to read this way? Perhaps. But look
at it this way: This is a list of writers, all of whom presumably know how
to use words to get points across effectively and efficiently. If they
can't manage to tip you to the content of their message via the subject
line, what are the odds they'll have anything worthwhile to say about
writing?

Yes, that sounds hard, perhaps cruel, but so what? If a writer can't or
won't use a subject line effectively that's their perogative. And it's my
perogative to judge the value of their message by what they chose to show
me first about it.

So just cruise the subject lines and delete away.


Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.