Subject headers are the solution (or are they?)
|From:||Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 17:25|
At 10:19 AM -0600 03/13/02, Peter Clark wrote:
>On Wednesday 13 March 2002 09:40 am, Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> Well, as Jim Grossman suggested, my suggestion is a bit regimented. (Was
>that Freudian term "anal retentive," Jim? :) But, on the other hand, I don't
>think that using headers (he proposed HELP and PLEASE CRITIQUE to make the
>messages more visible) will work, because that is the status quo. People are
>writing subjects like "Please comment" and no one is doing so. There's no
>commitment to in-depth peer review, probably for the simple reason that if we
>looked at every conlang that crossed our monitor in a given week, this would
>become a full-time job!
I don't think that anyone should be expected to review every
grammatical tidbit which streams in. As I suggested yesterday, I
believe that we have already separated ourselves into "schools", and
we already ignore what doesn't interest us and look at what interests
us. If we then resolve to say something about those bits we find
interesting, I think that enough critiquing will be accomplished to
satisfy the poster's desire for comments and our own (informal)
responsibility as list members.
> > Along with my new resolution to read and comment more carefully on
> > grammatical descriptions, I also now resolve to make better use of
> > the subject line so that you all will know right away when you want
> > to delete my posts.
> Well, if more people agreed to that, we'd go a long way toward solving the
Precisely. And we won't be implementing any new "policy", just
renewing our commitment to what IMO should be part of proper list
Dirk Elzinga Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu
Man deth swa he byth thonne he mot swa he wile.
'A man does as he is when he can do what he wants.'
- Old English Proverb