| 1 |
Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> My point is that you consistently write long essays that I, and |
| 5 |
>> apparently most others, don't bother to read. I'm not sure if you're |
| 6 |
>> aware of this. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Someone said on IRC this morning in response to this thread |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>> the tragic thing is that guy would be able to make valuable contributions if it weren't for the excessive length of his mails |
| 11 |
>> So, your emails are way too long. A huge percentage of recipients |
| 12 |
>> don't bother to read them. I don't know whether you just enjoy writing |
| 13 |
>> (you must!) or if you hope to actually be heard, but as it stands now |
| 14 |
>> you're not being heard by most. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> I dunno. I read them. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Duncan, I think the clue here, though, is that you should start a |
| 19 |
> blog. I'd read that, too. :) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> -- |
| 23 |
> :wq |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Me too. He does give a history of why things are the way they are when |
| 29 |
he writes. Sometimes that history gives context and good reasoning. I |
| 30 |
might also add, some people write short emails then have responses that |
| 31 |
request more info. I think Duncan just heads those off and makes his |
| 32 |
point the first time around. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Dale |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
:-) :-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives