OFF: Response (and lack thereof)

[Eric Siegerman]

On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 10:17:32AM -0500, Keith Henderson wrote:
> In the end, I think 'factual' or
> informative posts, or even a stated opinion that isn't particularly
> shocking, these all are absorbed by a large number of listmembers without
> necessarily provoking much (or any) response at all.  So you're generally
> being heard I think, and perhaps we even agree.

Indeed, netiquette (that quaint old concept) basically requires
the effect you've noticed.  "Avoid quoting an entire message just
to say `me too'".

> I think the posts that
> get the most response are those that have shock-horror value and especially
> ones that you unintentionally (or even intentionally!) include some
> historical ignorance/blatant error.

Interesting that netiquette (as opposed to vanilla etiquette) has
more of a problem with "right on!" than with "you're full of
shit!" -- as long as the latter opinion is defended, of course.

So I guess, by my own logic, if nobody comments on this posting,
I'll take that as a compliment :-)

--

|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        erics at telepres.com
|  |  /
I'm going to change it, but it's going to take some time.
        - Linus Torvalds, on Windows's market leadership