Message-ID: <v02120b00abb6371c68d9@[199.35.142.155]> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 19:11:48 -0800 From: "Glenn S. Tenney" <mailto:tenney@NETCOM.COM> Subject: Re: Messages' length, deletion and subjects To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
At 8:38 AM 4/14/95, Chuck B. at Ext. 214 wrote: > Let us be sticklers for precision when it is important, not for
>stickling's sake. My "Telecom-related posting 2" was about a telematics
>(the field where telecom and computing come together, I am told) symposium,
>which may or may not be the same thing as a "net symposium," to borrow Glenn's
>phrase. To a network engineer, the difference between telecom and telematics
>may be crucial (I don't know, not being one); to users of telematics
>technologies, it is not crucial, and "telecom" is just convenient shorthand.
I usually try to not respond to such list postings in order to help keep traffic down, but I must correct Chuck's very mistaken comments. I said: Secondly, Chuck B's postings DON'T specify a subject that describes the messages. A recent message was posted with the subject: Telecom-related posting 2. However, deep inside the message itself is the subject: African net symposium (from an article by Tony Hall). Therefore, none of Chuck B's posting topics could be gleaned from the headers.
This was NOT a critique of anyone's writing styles, it was a statement of fact taking (1) the subject line of the posting ("Telecom-related") and (2) the subject line taken from within the body of the message ("African net symposium" -- again, these words were taken verbatum from Chuck's posting). Nothing to do with whether it was telematics or telecom or apples or oranges. I thought it was clear to one and all that the informative subject line would have been the one in the message and NOT the one in the header --- ie. "telecom-related" is for all intents and purposes uninformative when compared to the descriptive (correct or not) "African net symposium".
> Let us not go critiquing each other's writing styles, especially not
>with sweeping, public charges which name names (I know, I just did, I hope for
>the last time). It does not exactly further constructive discussion.
I simply quoted verbatum what Chuck had posted stating clearly that Chuck's "hidden" subject line would have been informative and usefull while the visible subject line was not. I'm sure that we can all think of thousands of topics (e.g. satellite phone access or which TCP/IP stack works on brand X computer) which could all be called "telecom related". I suggest that Chuck re-read his own postings to see what was posted, especially before posting such a flame...
I believe that this should now go to private email to relieve the list from what may be unwanted noise to many...
--- Glenn Tenney mailto:tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER Voice: (415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546