On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:58:23 -0500 (CDT)
David W Tamkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people never say who wrote the text they quote, as if all their
> posts were corrections of others' errors and it were a kindness not to
> embarrass the quotees by reminding the list who said those dumb
> things. I think that's very rude and didn't intend to come off that
> way.
Correct attribution is one of the things I insist on for my lists.
Posts that don't attribute their quotes are simply rejected with a
pointer to the list guidelines on attribution. Predictably this pisses
some people off, especially new posters who didn't know/notice and have
their posts rejected.
I've observed a few behaviours that seem to correlate:
-- Identities are particularly strong on the list. Ideas are
associated with specific people, often named after them, and referred
to by an attributed shorthand. eg: "Marion's Stamp Collector".
-- Personal references to other posters by name/GECOS/email_id in
message bodies are significantly higher than other comparable lists
I'm on. This would seem another aspect of string identities.
-- Back references by name to prior out-of-thread quotes and posts are
common. The apparency is that posters are tracking content and
authors as tuples and know them well enough to refer to them casually.
-- Posters watch attributions and actively notice and aggressively
correct attribution errors (sometimes I goof and pass a
mis-attribution).
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
