The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw, as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this be remedied? Thx.
> The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw, > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this be > remedied? Thx.
Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read and but know we don't agree with.
Eryk I think its just a practical point -the list format can be confusing enough as it is. The lack of names makes it difficult to see exactly how an argument is being developed- you can't see the flow of argumant and counter-argument or not at least without considerable forensic efforts. Personally , although I'm pretty patient and tenacious, this tends to make me lose interest in what perhaps could be an interesting exercise. I suspect I'm not alone in this - there doesn't seems to have been the cross pollination that one might have hoped for between the two lists. regards michael — Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > > —– Original Message —– > From: "yasir" <[email protected]> > > > > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 > message comes thru Raw, > > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's > saying what. Can this be > > remedied? Thx. > > > Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with > people we never read and > but know we don't agree with. > > -e. > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
===== *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
, yasir~
I'd hate to agree w you but I don't.
—–Original Message—– From: Eryk Salvaggio
Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read and but know we don't agree with.
For a community list of individuals with established identities, anonymity does not help build trust. For a new community, particularly a politically active one, It might be good to have an anonymising list, where nobody knows who's saying what. It might well eliminate trolling, and might allow people greater freedom to express themselves.
Note use of the word "might". :-)
- Rob.
On 29 Nov 2003, at 12:54, yasir wrote:
> > I'd hate to agree w you but I don't. > > > —–Original Message—– > From: Eryk Salvaggio > > Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read > and but know we don't agree with.
, yasir~
Eryk: Your comment might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but taken seriously it's a generalization. I actually don't filter people out on lists even when I know, generally speaking, what perspectives they are (usually) coming from. Its because I do take the time to read what they have to say. I check my predictability algorithm here. There are always fresh new things although a lot is also predictable.
The problem I was having with DC mails wasn't just about who was saying what, but what they continue to say in an exchange. (is it still patrick who is saying this, maybe the initials are in the introduction of the moderators… ) When someone is explaining a position in 2 or 3 successive emails, if these emails are as anonymous as the replies and other observatory emails (having no author identity at all) it does become a tangled web. One can follow threads only as part of text of emails by any number of people (that is by going thru them) without any differentiation of author id. My guess is its not deliberately done on the DC list - it might be the crossposting eliminating the whole header, that might be the problem. The emails are anonymized probably without authorial consent! (unless they have a signature)
Rob: Anonymity on new lists, or established aliases on older lists are equally good if one wants to say something anonymously. Also one can always sign up with another id, as people were doing anyway earlier this year.
Unrelated to this it was unfortunate that people started having meaningless arguments. One had to start ignoring a lot of those kandinkii-joseph mails hoping the exchange would die away. Also the introduction of membership fees had a predictable thining out effect.
This is ridiculous. Talk about invading a community with no sense of who the eff is talking. People, turkeys aside, this is not working from the Rhizome list.
On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 11:45 AM, yasir wrote:
> > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw, > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this > be > remedied? Thx. > >> y
I spoke with Richard Chung yesterday and he told me he's going to see if he can't play with the From: header to change the name part to switch to the name of the person who's speaking. So although all those messages will come from the same email address, they'll have different names and so should show up as distinct in your email client.
F.
yasir husain wrote:
> > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru > Raw, > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this > be > remedied? Thx. > > >y >
Comments
—– Original Message —–
From: "yasir" <[email protected]>
> The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw,
> as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this be
> remedied? Thx.
Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read and
but know we don't agree with.
-e.
Eryk
I think its just a practical point -the list format
can be confusing enough as it is.
The lack of names makes it difficult to see exactly
how an argument is being developed- you can't see the
flow of argumant and counter-argument or not at least
without considerable forensic efforts.
Personally , although I'm pretty patient and
tenacious, this tends to make me lose interest in what
perhaps could be an interesting exercise.
I suspect I'm not alone in this - there doesn't seems
to have been the cross pollination that one might have
hoped for between the two lists.
regards
michael
— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "yasir" <[email protected]>
>
>
> > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3
> message comes thru Raw,
> > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's
> saying what. Can this be
> > remedied? Thx.
>
>
> Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with
> people we never read and
> but know we don't agree with.
>
> -e.
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
I'd hate to agree w you but I don't.
—–Original Message—–
From: Eryk Salvaggio
Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read
and but know we don't agree with.
For a community list of individuals with established identities,
anonymity does not help build trust.
For a new community, particularly a politically active one, It might be
good to have an anonymising list, where nobody knows who's saying what.
It might well eliminate trolling, and might allow people greater
freedom to express themselves.
Note use of the word "might". :-)
- Rob.
On 29 Nov 2003, at 12:54, yasir wrote:
>
> I'd hate to agree w you but I don't.
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Eryk Salvaggio
>
> Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read
> and but know we don't agree with.
Eryk:
Your comment might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but taken seriously it's a
generalization. I actually don't filter people out on lists even when I
know, generally speaking, what perspectives they are (usually) coming
from. Its because I do take the time to read what they have to say. I
check my predictability algorithm here. There are always fresh new
things although a lot is also predictable.
The problem I was having with DC mails wasn't just about who was saying
what, but what they continue to say in an exchange. (is it still patrick
who is saying this, maybe the initials are in the introduction of the
moderators… ) When someone is explaining a position in 2 or 3
successive emails, if these emails are as anonymous as the replies and
other observatory emails (having no author identity at all) it does
become a tangled web. One can follow threads only as part of text of
emails by any number of people (that is by going thru them) without any
differentiation of author id. My guess is its not deliberately done on
the DC list - it might be the crossposting eliminating the whole header,
that might be the problem. The emails are anonymized probably without
authorial consent! (unless they have a signature)
Rob:
Anonymity on new lists, or established aliases on older lists are
equally good if one wants to say something anonymously. Also one can
always sign up with another id, as people were doing anyway earlier this
year.
Unrelated to this it was unfortunate that people started having
meaningless arguments. One had to start ignoring a lot of those
kandinkii-joseph mails hoping the exchange would die away. Also the
introduction of membership fees had a predictable thining out effect.
This is ridiculous. Talk about invading a community with no sense of
who the eff is talking.
People, turkeys aside, this is not working from the Rhizome list.
On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 11:45 AM, yasir wrote:
>
> The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw,
> as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this
> be
> remedied? Thx.
>
>> y
I spoke with Richard Chung yesterday and he told me he's going to see if he can't play with the From: header to change the name part to switch to the name of the person who's speaking. So although all those messages will come from the same email address, they'll have different names and so should show up as distinct in your email client.
F.
yasir husain wrote:
>
> The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru
> Raw,
> as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this
> be
> remedied? Thx.
>
> >y
>