<snipped>
<entire spawning conversation>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...customize/browse_frm/thread/ec775c862a23718e/
</entire spawning conversation>
Well, there' s a couple recommendations there
but no reference for why they're relevant.
People should really learn how to trim. The
OP's original quest should never be snipped.
Shenan said:
"Never" is a bit overdone.
For example, my response has nothing to do with the OP or the
suggestions made to them - but with a statement you have made that
also had nothing to do with the OP. Therefore - why waste a lot of
text space (although I do normally link the Google Groups archive
for posterity) with unrelated information? So I did not - I
responded to you and quoted the your message text - which is what I
am responding to.
"Never" is a long time, situations change and come up unexpectantly
and very few things can actually have the word 'never' applied to
them.
Bad practice to snip the original message if your responding to the
OP/suggesting something to the OP - generally agreed. Gone off on a
side-conversation - spawned from but perhaps not directly related
to the original message - it depends.
lol, yeah, it "always" is, it seems.
Shenan, Then you were OT and made no correctional move or
clarifying move. The post I originally responed to came from you
and was to the OP, and was comprised of nothing but your own
output; nothing whatsoever as all had been snipped away. I didn't
say you did the snipping nor did I say anyone specific had done so.
Exactly; which was what I said to you.
That's for this message; not the one where you had nothing to post
but your own words. This post has gone completely OT and your
trying to defend this is rather a useless effort, to be honest
about it.
That's "always" the case, isn't it? But the fact remains that, in
this case and in any thread, OP's original quest should never be
snipped. Period. If you're really trying to be helpful, then you're
paying attention to the OP and the query put forth, in theory. I
have to say in theory because so often you have no consideration of
the OP in your responses at all. The second someone appears to not
think exactly the same way you do and especially when they have a
valid point, you reach for your bag of verbosity and just charge
ahead blindly most of the time.
No, it doesn't depend when it is IN and a part of the original
thread, which that was. And so is this as was your post preceding
this one. Taking it off group or even over to e-mail is the
correct response if you actually care about what your'e saying and
wish to get a point across that doesn't seem to be getting picked
up. A thread essentially belongs, so to speak, to the originator
until it is marked resolved or abandoned by the originator. FYI 28
I think it is, covers that off rather neatly IIRC.
When you said, "The post I originally responed to came from you and was to
the OP." --> what? You responded to "J. P. Gilliver (John)", then to me in
the new spur conversation. Neither of our responses (you and I) are
to/about the Original Post nor will they in any way benefit the Original
Poster.
Which is fine.
Real life doesn't work like the fantasy world anyone would try to 'strive
for' here.
Conversations on one topic often spur other conversations on similar (and
sometimes completely unconnected) topics. People go to
conferences/meeting/places with a mixture of people and speak about all
sorts of things amongst themselves before/during/after the
conference/meeting/etc. People start talking about one thing and break off
into different groups to discuss similar/different things as time lingers
by.
It's very simple. The thread had already broken off into a different topic
and *I* was continuing that discussion. I had no interest in answering the
original poster, but you. I was continuing a side conversation you had
started in the room of crowded people.
I'm not 'defending' anything - for there is nothing to defend. This is the
way conversations have worked for hundreds/thousands of years in groups of
people with varying thoughts/ideas/etc.
Just because one does not respond directly to the OP does not mean they are
not trying to be helpful. Many times they are trying to 'help' someone else
with a spurred off conversation that was started. Doesn't mean they are
being helpful either - not all conversations are helpful - just interesting.
I'd go as far as to bet most conversations people have during a given
lifetime are *not* helpful to anyone. *grin*
While many people love to say, "Start your own post" - and I have done it
myself if the new responder gives little or no relevant information (but I
normally just ask for more information) - the fact is that if a side
conversation started from the original - so be it. It's not disrespectful,
it's not really choosing not to be helpful to the original poster (the one
who started the original conversation that may have spurred further
tangents/complete parallels and/or conversations that seemingly have no
connection unless you can see the entirety..) - but simply talking -
conversing.
It's like walking into a room 30 minutes into the conversation and only
catching the part *just said* and keying in on that - since it is the latest
topic and all you know about at that time. Just because there happens to be
a security camera with audio that recorded everything available to you
doesn't mean you *have* to review it and make sure you stay on the original
topic only. ;-) You might argue it's simpler here - since the whole article
is there for anyone to read - but it's also there for anyone to read and
decide whether that topic is dead (and I did decide that topic was dead, the
answers were given and if the OP happens to come back and give more
information, maybe it will change slightly or be ended 'officially' - as we
both know the OPs rarely return to 'close' anything.
As I have said before - to each their own. I *hope* you don't think the
same way I do - variety is what makes things fun. The more variety, the
better. I even like having 'anonymous' around - after all - you cannot tell
how good something is if all you have to compare with is the same level of
good. ;-) I am not trying to change your mind, convince you or anyone else
of anything. I am just sharing my opinion on your opinion.
Let me give you the short form:
You used the word 'never' and you were telling everyone the way they should
post.
Ironic?
" The OP's original quest should never be snipped. "
And you just keep telling people how they should communicate with, "Taking
it off group or even over to e-mail is the correct response if you actually
care about what your'e saying and wish to get a point across that doesn't
seem to be getting picked up. A thread essentially belongs, so to speak, to
the originator until it is marked resolved or abandoned by the originator."
It's just a newsgroup - a newsgroup of people with different personalities,
different cultures, different ideas on just about everything under the sun.
While it is suggested one 'stay on topic' - it *is* a suggestion, not an
'order'.
If you don't have fun with it - why bother?
