Re: replies to sender or...(Discussion)

[Jack Ely <IMS_ELY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Discussion: (my .02 worth)
    
    I prefer replies to the list if that's where the original message was. 
    Isn't that why it's called a list? I.e., a sharing of information.
    
    Also I believe in using common sense.
    
    Sometimes I will reply directly to the sender - especially if it is a FAQ 
    and the person asking the question is new. ~OR~ Someone specifically asks 
    for a private reply.
    
    If the question / answer appears to be of general interest, then by all 
    means it should go to the list.
    
    Let's say, for instance, a question is posted which has been answered many 
    times in the past - but you also note that 3 or 4 new subscribers have 
    signed up recently - some asking similar questions - some just lurking. 
    Then if I were replying I would post to the list.
    
    Lastly -- two things...
    
    o Avoid repeating long posts in their entirety - just grab enough to get 
      the point or jog the memory. (As pointed out on this list before).
    
    o Summarized replies (I.e. - replies to several posts) are fine, in fact I 
      find them enjoyable. Like some of those from Winslow and Danny and 
      others. They are clearly indicated in the text (body) as well as the 
      SUBJECT: line. I.e. SUBJECT: "A" harp, valves, wood comb...
    
    o SUBJECT: lines without regard to actual content can be misleading if not   
      a little annoying.
    
    o A general post to communicate with or find someone after several 
      delivery failures, or such problems... - is also tolerable in my book.
    
    OK. it was three things.   :-)
    								Jack
    
         Jack Ely - Columbus, Ohio  --Internet--> IMS_ELY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx