Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: % of LUG mail deleted w/o being read
From: "Gary Todoroff" <datamaster@humboldt1.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:36:04 -0800

If I'm in a hurry, I hardly ever read e-mails where the first screen shows
only the original posting, and the reply is buried several scrolls down the
screen. If I am being lazy in response, then I reply like this at the top
and put the whole original e-mail below. If I'm feeling relaxed and
generous, then I do some editing and <snip>ing. It's like the old letter
that began, "Sorry, I would have made this note shorter, but I didn't have
the time."

Gary Todoroff

- ----------
> From: Leikon35@aol.com
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] Re: % of LUG mail deleted w/o being read
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 4:28 PM
> 
> It would be interesting to compile a list of the percentage of the 50 or
more
> LUG  posts per day - that are deleted without being read as I have heard
many
> members say that they would automatically delete all post which were from
> certain members that really bear no interest to the group & should have
been
> sent by private mail.
> 
> I don't think that I am alone in deleting all mail in which the subject
is:
> "Leica-Users List Digest xxxxxxx" unless it was from someone that
> from past reading I respect.
> 
> I will open the compilation with my own figure of approx. 66% deleted
with
> out being read;  After all no one wants to spend all day reading mail.
> 
> To the LUGgers that still remember my last compilation, with the help
> of Patrick & Simon, of the 506 members from 39 countries - it might be
> significant to note that the subscribers roster has dropped by almost
20%.
> IMHO due to the great influx of non - pertinent mail.
> 
> Marvin Moss
> ====================================================
> In a message dated 98-01-31 13:28:05 EST, Marc Small writes:
> << 
>  It's a sage idea, when responding to a digest entry, to change the
subject
>  back to what the initial discussion was.  Most of the regular LUG
members
>  will ignore the heading as shown above as they haven't a clue as to what
is
>  being discussed.
>  
>  I disagree with you and have the weight of optical authority on my side,
>  but, so be it.  The issue isn't worth pursuing.
>  
>  Best,
>  
>  Marc
>   >>