DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER

Die hier archivierte Mail kann, muss sich aber nicht auf den Themenkomplex von Oekonux beziehen.

Insbesondere kann nicht geschlossen werden, dass die hier geäußerten Inhalte etwas mit dem Projekt Oekonux oder irgendeiner TeilnehmerIn zu tun haben.

DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER

Message 02148 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: choxT02138 Message: 2/4 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[chox] Re: Reply styles (was: Re: [ox-en] Mail format)



Hi Stefan,
The first part of my letter was a statement that in my opinion can beunderstood without any reference to previous conversation.  I juststate what kind of emails are more readable for me. Let's see:
This quoting subject is an interesting one for me - so I've decided to> unlurk now.  I personaly find it much more convenient if the text I> read is not interspersed with quotes.  Instead of putting literarily> big chunks of text you can use your own words to describe the points> you are discussing with.  You might lose some prcision - but the> reader would not need to switch context from the original message to> your text.  And for the most part I would say that this is a fair> trade off, I do not propose this as an absolute measure - but rather I> would like to push the balance in this direction.
The only part referring to the previous conversation is the use of'This quoting subject' - this is my mistake, but I belive I could justwrite 'The subject of quoting' and continue just as well.  Someone whowould read it without the knowlege of previous emails should be ableto jump into the discussion without any problem.  That's why I findyour words:
*If* this is done. Usually it's not. It's kind of funny that you just> gave an example for not giving such a summary. Instead you expected> the reader to know the mail and have it in mind. Otherwise your mail> is simply not understandable. It is, however, had you quoted the> snippet you are referring to - which I hope I did below.
unfair.
Those two examples are also an ilustration when exact quoting isreally needed in my opinion - and that is when you really need tocomment the exact words and not just the overall ideas of the email.I do believe that this is not needed in most circumstances - and itlooks very nit picking and like you want to fight every word of thepredecessor.
The need of exact words is rather exception for me - and TOFU fitswell here - since you can find the them at the bottom of the email ifyou really need them, but you can skip them for the most part. When Iread email threads I read the emails one after another so I do usuallyhave the previous emails in my head. Even if the thread is not so fastso that I read the emails separately I usually remember the overallarguments of the predecessor so I don't really need to read the exactwords of the previous emails.  I just read the emails quickly notpondering over every word, many emails I just skim and read parts ofit just to see if it starts to be interesting.  I guess this is whathappens when you receive really lots of emails.
--Zbyszek
PS.  Excuse me for leaving the full quote of your email below.

On 11/13/06, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----->> Hi Zbigniew and all!>> Last week (9 days ago) Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:> > I personaly find it much more convenient if the text I> > read is not interspersed with quotes.>> I understand that this is a matter of taste. In a discussion I love to> read the things said as it would happen in an oral communication. IMHO> this is accomplished rather well by an inline quoting style.>> What you prefer to me sounds more like giving speeches to each other> and this sounds not very communicative to me. Indeed in some cases> TOFU quoting style feels exactly so to me.>> > Instead of putting literarily> > big chunks of text you can use your own words to describe the points> > you are discussing with.>> *If* this is done. Usually it's not. It's kind of funny that you just> gave an example for not giving such a summary. Instead you expected> the reader to know the mail and have it in mind. Otherwise your mail> is simply not understandable. It is, however, had you quoted the> snippet you are referring to - which I hope I did below.>> More often than not I have a hard time figuring out what the> respective person is referring to. This is especially true for replies> to long posts.>> > You might lose some prcision - but the> > reader would not need to switch context from the original message to> > your text.>> Ah, I think I understand. For you inline quoting is a switch. For my> reading habits TOFU style is this switch.>> Another problem is that in my experience in TOFU style people often do> not reply to essential parts or even to questions.>> > And for the most part I would say that this is a fair> > trade off, I do not propose this as an absolute measure - but rather I> > would like to push the balance in this direction.>> Fair enough.>> > It is much easier just to quote the original text without translating> > it but it is easier to read the text in one chunk and in the era of> > information overload we need to be gentle with the reader.>> What may mean different things for different people ;-) .>> > On 11/3/06, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:> >> * Put your comments behind the citation you are commenting> >>> >>   This makes it easier for people to understand what you are referring> >>   to.> >>> >>   Also it is generally a bad idea to simply quote the whole mail you> >>   are citing (called TOFU in German: "Text oben - Fullquote unten").> >>   Often there are only a few points you are commenting and it saves> >>   (mental) bandwidth to make this explicit.> >>> >>   It is particular bad practice to put the quote below your own text> >>   because people who want to know what you are referring to then need> >>   to read the mail bottom-up - which is extremely difficult in> >>   languages using top-down direction.>> You quoted my complete mail though I guess you replied only to a small> part of it - namely the part above. Above you said that you prefer> giving a summary. Let's assume you gave a summary: Why then should you> quote the *whole mail*? Why then quote at all? With your concept isn't> quoting obsolete at all then?>>> Well, I think I understood your point and I understand that there are> different reading habits - and probably writing habits also. *If* your> point with giving a summary is adhered to *and* if the then> superfluous full-quote is omitted then I'd even agree with you that> this is adequate for a different style. However, I guess there needs> to be much education work done until then because AFAICS this is the> rare exception rather than the rule. Until then I'll continue to> prefer the classical interspersed quoting style :-) .>>>                                                 Mit Freien Grüßen>>                                                 Stefan>> ____________________________________________________> No. It also inflates the mail unnecessarily.> Because it worsens the readability of the text.> Text Oben, Full-Quote Unten.> TOFU.> That's all?> What is wrong with TOFU?> What does TOFU mean?> What is the biggest nuisance with replies?> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>>> iQCVAwUBRVgyagnTZgC3zSk5AQFNHwQAsra8ruVO+t3tHMruG7N7gpBIIVhOj2AO> NVCeY8VMeWlM4dxiB3JWnjqEmCc+cRi5YSyicOlU0EwfD8d5oZJoU3biazPQGhL4> rn6i2mqtKWip64AKzr3mTJtiVXjn0GwdObt+Kf15Gm2MJ5LcglbnOzv1yZQXw3zZ> cUbftu97sN8=> =A2fz> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----->

-- Zbigniew Lukasiakhttp://brudnopis.blogspot.com/�������������������Ҋ������zJ'��󫁩�b�������^���-����-����{�



[English translation]
Thread: choxT02138 Message: 2/4 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 02148 [Homepage] [Navigation]