i delete a large volume of pen-l email, which i would like to read since
i respect the opinions of the authors, simply because of the impossible
formatting of the text (yes, i do realize i write entirely in lowercase,
and if required i will present my case against 'gratuitous capitalization').
some of this strange formatting cannot even be explained as limitations
of non-technical users, since the particular format seems to have been
explicitly chosen by the sender, over the default (IMHO more readable)
format of the mailreader.
in particular, i plead that we return to the tried and tested USENET
conventions of:
1) not attaching the entire message, that you are responding to, at the
end of your one line response.
2) identifying the poster you are responding to. most mailreaders will
automatically attach a single line that does so, when you click on the
'reply' button (or equivalent).
3) quoting text you are responding to using some prefix: the preferred
one being ">". almost all the popular mailreaders will do so by default,
and can be configured to do so if required.
4) replying in-line: quote sections of text you are responding to
*before* your response (see example below). keep the quoted text minimal
to what is relevant, if possible, without losing context.
5) using more blank lines rather than less, especially to separate
original text you are responding to, from your own response.
there are various other suggestions, but i think the above 5 points
would make a big difference. below is my example of what i recommend as
a readable post:
---start example-------------------------------------------
On Feb 24, 2004, George Bush wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2000, Bill Clinton wrote:
> >
> > Alan Greenspan is God. He is the invisible hand.
> >
>
> I agree. He is da man!
>
You guys are so wrong. I dated the guy back when we took Homoskedactics
101 and the man just didn't get it. I think he is a closet Heteroskedactist.
>
> Granted, I tried kidding around with him but the dude has no sense
> of humour. And I mean, "irrational exhuberance", is that even a
> word? Or three words? You know what I mean. But my daddy and Dick
> say he's the smartest dude around when it comes to this stuff.
>
Well I could tell you a thing or two, but Michael has strictly forbidden
posts with any sort of explicit content. Let me just say that Ayn ruined
him for the rest of us.
Plus the guy constantly contradicts himself with his theories. It is
preposterous to even consider him a serious economist. Take for
instance, his frequent reference to the "Laffer curve". Bet old Arthur
was Laffing all the way to the bank when you guys swallowed that one.
Warm Regards,
Disgruntled Leftie Joe
---end example-------------------------------------------
i must emphasize that i am not trying to lecture here. this post is a
plea from a non-eco list member who wants to be able to read your messages!
--ravi
