Deion Sanders

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Tyler wrote:
| That is a correct statement.  Bro Dave Vivas didn't put the remards
| in there about e-mail communications in UPPERCASE letters.  What I did
| was ... since there was a post posted in all CAPS (which is warned
against
| in the H-F netiquette document when everybody first subscribes) and
there's
| a reply to that post.

I know who wrote the netiquette rule about the Caps.  Bro. Dave cut and
pasted it to Bro. Chris' post.  According to the above, it appears that
Bro. Tyler was the one who *posted* the net rules *in direct reply* to Bro.
Chris' post.  I found no such indication (at first) in Bro. Dave's post to
that effect (that questioned the motives of Bro. Chris).  It appeared to me
(and logically so) that Bro. Dave was the one "correcting" with regard to
the net rules (and not Bro. Tyler).

If I read Bro. Dave's reply incorrectly, and indeed, Bro. Tyler was the
first one to bring up the net - rule violation (which is usually done *in
private* and not publicly), I apogize for falsely accusing Bro. Dave.  

Bro. Tyler wrote:
| Usually posting in all caps is mostly a mistake that a newbie (internet
term
| for someone new to the internet that doesn't know a majority of the
customs,
| protocols, and net-ettiquette) would make.

Which is the assumption I made when I read Bro. Chris' post.  It was a
logical conclusion since the entire thing was in caps (including his own
name - hardly something someone would speak in anger) and not just one or
two sentences.

| My action, when Bro Dave Vivas post came through, was to discard his
| original post, then re-post the discarded message of Bro Vivas through 
| a web interface I've invented that allows me to add a moderators note 
| to the original message and still allow the post have the posted identity

| of the original sender.  When that post (the one with the moderators
| note comes through), it's approved and send back to the listprocessor
| for distribution.  This isn't done very often, but necessary to point
| out the possibility (in this case) of why that particular reply was 
| valid from the standpoint of the poster.

I didn't notice any indication (except at the very beginning) a quite
unobtrusive statement regarding some kind of "note" from the moderators.  I
didn't "grasp" that that statement was an indication that the moderators
had actually made an addition to Bro. Dave's post.  It appeared to be
nothing more than a cut-and-paste by Bro. Dave (since the "note" was not
obvious, and *most* "corrections" made by moderators are done in private). 
A suggestion would be to make it more obvious that such a quotation
actually came from the moderators.

I would make a suggestion to Bro. Dave, though.  If you notice a particular
net rule violation, take it to the person in private or to the moderators. 
It is possible they missed something.  It avoids all kinds of confusion. 
The note I originally posted in reply to Bro. Dave was simply a defense of
Bro. Chris' post.  I was trying to help Bro. Dave see it differently (other
than assuming anger).


Anneliese