List etiquette [was: Re: Starcraft Crashing Problem]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 08:43:53PM +0800, Dark Servant wrote: Yeah it probably would be poor manners for someone to post a reply to a private mail onto the list if the person doing it actually noticed that the mail they received actually was private. But wouldn't it be poor manners not to notice that the mail was private? In the case of the WAMUG list, the list's software takes no position about whether replies should go to the list or to the personal sender. Thus, it is up to us as individuals to make that choice. To *add* the list's address into a private reply doesn't seem polite to me! All I can guess is that when you're replying to the list, you're using the 'Reply' button and then *manually* inserting the list's address. Perhaps what you should do instead is use the 'Reply All' button which will automatically include the list's address. If it is a private e-mail, 'Reply All' will not add the list's address. (However, if you do use the 'Reply All' button, be sure to remove the personal sender's address so as not to be sending duplicates to that person -- I don't think this list supresses duplicates.) PS. With many lists, it's normal for a variety of replies to be sent off-list. There are many reasons for this.
Re: List etiquette [was: Re: Starcraft Crashing Problem]
On 02/01/2005, at 9:36 AM, James Devenish wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 08:43:53PM +0800, Dark Servant wrote: Yeah it probably would be poor manners for someone to post a reply to a private mail onto the list if the person doing it actually noticed that the mail they received actually was private. But wouldn't it be poor manners not to notice that the mail was private? In the case of the WAMUG list, the list's software takes no position about whether replies should go to the list or to the personal sender. I don't know what mail setup you have but this list is set for the reply to go to the sender ... and if the person replying requires the mail to go to the list the address has to be changed or the Wamug address added . As in this mail I have deliberately changed the address so to goes to the list Bob
Re: List etiquette [was: Re: Starcraft Crashing Problem]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 09:58:26AM +0800, Robert Howells wrote: On 02/01/2005, at 9:36 AM, James Devenish wrote: In the case of the WAMUG list, the list's software takes no position about whether replies should go to the list or to the personal sender. this list is set for the reply to go to the sender From inspection of the e-mail headers, I see that the list software inserts no explicit recommendation about where followups should go. Thus, it is by a matter of default that they go to 'From' address (i.e. they go off-list to the personal sender). Note also that the following appears in the posting guidelines at http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml : When you reply to a posting made by another person: 1. Did you only respond to the list - unless specifically asked otherwise? I'm not quite sure what that sentence means, but my interpretation is that it recommends that replies be sent only to the list's address, so that other correspondents' addresses do not accumulate as duplicate recipients. So, neither 'Reply' nor 'Reply-All' quite fits the bill in the current situation.
Re: Non Reply To Posts
As one of the scary people posting here, I thought I'd add my reply after a large number of posts to provide my perspective on our little WAMUG community. Others have pointed out that you are not alone when you feel your question going unanswered. As a long-time member of this community I can assure you that I answer more questions than get answered, thus adding to your perspective that not all questions get answered. Over the years I've varied in my contributions from giving freely, through pointing out unreasonable expectations from fellow community members, quiet benevolence, ignoring most posts and all the various levels in between. At the end of the day it comes down to the care-level. Some days I care more, others I care less. When community members expect support, and complain about the lack of support, my initial response is invariably: Well, if you need support, then bloody pay for it. Some have responded to the lament about the level of professionalism and others have replied that they are unfamiliar with what ever the software was that sparked the original question. I think it comes down to this: This is a community of people who more-or-less have a common interest in the Macintosh in all its diversity. The community is made up from people who bought their computer yesterday, through to people who have used more computers than they care to remember. There are users, developers, amateur and professionals in this community. Each community member has the choice to give or to take. The bigger the community, the more takers and the less givers. At some stage, the givers will leave or ignore silly questions. The posting guidelines were written in an attempt at increasing the number of givers and showing the takers that they can benefit if they become givers. At the end of the day, I make a living from giving IT support. I need to pay my bills and eat. Some days I feel charitable towards people asking questions, and other days I feel like I'm surrounded by a horde of cheap-skates who could afford a Macintosh, but can't be bothered to pay for support. So, my advice to this community and those who lament the lack of reply, give more than you take, learn, communicate and enjoy this large group of fellow Macintosh users from around the globe. Some people don't have any family, shelter or food, so really, take a deep breath and remember that there are people at the end of every email message. As an aside, some of the professional members in this community have in fact discussed this whole concept face-to-face and have experimented in several ways with their level of contribution. Strangely enough, we can't seem to help ourselves and still feel the need to assist, even if the level of communication has degenerated into finger pointing. So, don't be afraid, we haven't run away just yet :-) Cheers, Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S34°33'15 - E150°21'57 (Moss Vale, NSW) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. Proudly supported by Skipper Trucks, Highway1, Concept AV, Sony Central, Dalcon ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - onno at itmaze dot com dot au
Re: List etiquette [was: Re: Starcraft Crashing Problem]
On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 14:17, James Devenish wrote: Note also that the following appears in the posting guidelines at http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml : When you reply to a posting made by another person: 1. Did you only respond to the list - unless specifically asked otherwise? I'm not quite sure what that sentence means, but my interpretation is that it recommends that replies be sent only to the list's address, so that other correspondents' addresses do not accumulate as duplicate recipients. As the author of that sentence, it means, send mail to the list as a first response, unless the message indicates that another response is required. I'll concede that it could do with a re-work :-) Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S34°33'15 - E150°21'57 (Moss Vale, NSW) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. Proudly supported by Skipper Trucks, Highway1, Concept AV, Sony Central, Dalcon ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - onno at itmaze dot com dot au
Re: List etiquette [was: Re: Starcraft Crashing Problem]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 09:58:26AM +0800, Robert Howells wrote: On 02/01/2005, at 9:36 AM, James Devenish wrote: In the case of the WAMUG list, the list's software takes no position about whether replies should go to the list or to the personal sender. this list is set for the reply to go to the sender From inspection of the e-mail headers, I see that the list software inserts no explicit recommendation about where followups should go. Thus, it is by a matter of default that they go to 'From' address (i.e. they go off-list to the personal sender). Note also that the following appears in the posting guidelines at http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml : When you reply to a posting made by another person: 1. Did you only respond to the list - unless specifically asked otherwise? This rule is set up to so that people post to the list adding to the archive. Other users can then access relevant information from the archive if the question has been asked before. Of course this is only useful if the information remains mac related. The second part James has already outlined. I do not consider it bad manners to not notice that a mail has been sent privately. I normally send my emails to the list by using reply and changing the address. I don't feel that using the reply all method is any easier or harder. Ruben
Re: List etiquette [was: Re: Starcraft Crashing Problem]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 04:06:28PM +0800, Dark Servant wrote: I do not consider it bad manners to not notice that a mail has been sent privately. !!! I hope everyone (including you) does the courtesy of paying attention! If you reproduce private messages in the public forum, the least you can do is to anonymise them.
Wireless Network Products
Greetings, and happy new year to all! At home, I have an ethernet network in our office with ADSL. My daughter needs a new PC laptop for school, which has wireless (802.11) built in (unfortunately Macs are not an option). Since we also have an iBook and another PC laptop with wireless installed, I thought that it's about time to get wireless access from our network. My potential problem is that we have a largish, two storey house, and it would be nice to have access from anywhere in the house (and preferably out near the pool, too!). I've heard of problems with Airports in this regard. Can anyone provide some personal experience with this issue? I am keen to hear of particular products which people have found useful. Cheers, Andrew
Re: Wireless Network Products
On 2/1/05 9:00 PM, Andrew Schox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My potential problem is that we have a largish, two storey house, and it would be nice to have access from anywhere in the house (and preferably out near the pool, too!). I've heard of problems with Airports in this regard. Can anyone provide some personal experience with this issue? I am keen to hear of particular products which people have found useful. My son uses an old iBook at 11MB/s wirelessly at school. Even though the school is Windows only I installed ADMITMac and he can log in mount and use the schools Windows 2000 Server network printers. The school has a pile of Belkin Wireless Access Points but their range is 50 metres at best and the signal drops away quickly. At home we have a 3 level house with a pool out back, we used a 111MB/sec Netgear Access Point connected to a wired router at first and my son had no problems accessing our network wirelessly. We have a primary school behind our house and he could access our network from their playing fields. This is at least a 100 metres. We have since added a Netgear 54MB/s Wireless Router to replace our old fixed router and attached a Airport Express to the Stereo and he wanders anywhere in the house always at full signal strength. He tells me it all seems so much better at home compared to school. As far as I know while the a standard is 11MB/s compared to the g standard at 54MB/s, the a standard has a better range. I guess it comes down to what type of card the PC Laptop uses and what you'll put into your other laptops but the faster speed option is the way I'd go. If you find you don't get enough range you can always add another Access Point which are much cheaper than full wireless routers. All the best Greg Sharp
Re: Tsunami, WAMUG Posts and New Year
Just to add to Reg's links, The Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake has more statistics and information about this terrible disaster. Enjoy your LSL Reg Jon On 1/1/05 9:44 PM, Reg Whitely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Mike for the great tsunami references @ http://ioc.unesco.org/itsu/templates/itsu/images/animation.gif I'm impressed, and of course deeply saddened. I thought this link from your reference was even better: http://ioc.unesco.org/itsu/contents.php?id=135 It shows a graphic image of the time taken for the tsunami to travel across the entire Indian Ocean. 5.5 hours to us here on the SW corner of this little continent. Your BBC News animated link at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4136289.stm is wonderful. Sadly it's a graphic tool demonstrating the absolute power of nature. From the ioc.unesco website I found this link which is scary too. http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/bulletin.html Not having seen this database before, and having no scientific (or other) knowledge of the prevalence of earthquakes, I found this log of the Worldwide Earthquake Activity in the Last Seven Days *sobering*. Eg The most recent entry is 2005/01/01 06:25:44 5.05N 92.26E 10.0km 6.5 Scale OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA BBC News UK web page showing images sent in by the public. The third image strikes me, as, if my interpretation is correct, the tsunami is visible behind the little ocean village. I really don't want to imagine what happened next. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4135141.stm 3 of 7 Leslie Sharpe: I have not seen any photos of the tsunami out at sea but here is one I took at Telok Bahang, North West Penang. I was walking with my family in the Penang National Park. Thank you WAMUGgers for your continued advice, support and friendship. From year in to year out I have really appreciated it. Remember that the more you put into life, the more you are rewarded by it. Have a wonderful 2005 Regards Reg Reg Whitely Principal, Augusta Primary School Soon to be on Long Service Leave And then resurfacing as Deputy Principal, Beachlands Primary School Geraldton (Division 4 win in $31m Lotto suggests this career move is imminent:-)) AEE 2002-2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home: 08 9758 0881, Mob: 042 799 1211 ___ 'The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently.' _Friedrich Nietzsche -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- Archives - http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml Guidelines - http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml Unsubscribe - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WAMUG is powered by Stalker CommuniGatePro --- Jon Bjorn Jonsson M.Ed. MACE ICT Co-ordinator Canning Vale Primary School Phone 9455 4788 - fax 9455 4259 ---
