[ale] Ale Digest, Vol 24, Issue 18

[Jim Popovitch]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 09:10, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Clearly an off topic post from Jim P ranting about another ALE'er replying
> to the digest version. The social fabric of the universe will now falter and
> collapse because someone did something that Jim P's email reader displayed
> in a way that was too hard for him to follow.

Wow, I didn't know RFCs were off topic.  RFC 2822 specifically
mentions the proper way to reply.

> I'm not sure what is worse, the fact that the ALE list has a digest option
> available for those people who have a life outside of ALE and want to simply
> read it all at once and there is really no way for a digest reader to post
> "properly" since they can't find a particular post they are interested in
> replying to and then change to non-digest mode and get another copy of the
> single post for reply purposes, or the apparent inflexibility of a very
> small number of ALE'ers to simply accept the reality that theirs is not
> always the best and never the only way to do things.

According to the RFC, the original reply was in error, it's quite
clear.  And btw a Linux tool created that error.

> As this is a Linux list and it has been by extensive experience that the
> Linux users are far more intelligent than mainstream computer users I can
> only surmise than the disdain from Jim P about having an email suddenly not
> automatically threaded for him must be related to simply abject laziness.
> Maybe it was a thread he had already muted and wanted to not see any more
> [OT] posts. May he's just constipated.

Nope.  Just tired of "intelligent maingstream computer users" not getting it.

> I object far more to the personal attacks on a silent ALE'er for chiming in with
> actually good information but in a non-threadable way from a long time ALE'er
> who usually posts better than this far more than I object to a digest reply post
> that was very neatly trimmed and succinct.

I think following standards should be a 100% "on" thing.

-Jim P.