Re: virus: Tad's rule #3d and e

Tadeusz Niwinski (tad@teta.ai)
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:30:27 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Brett Lane Robertson: "Re: virus: education and the state"
Previous message: David McFadzean: "Re: virus: Nature of Information"
Maybe in reply to: Reed Konsler: "virus: Tad's rule #3d and e"

Reed wrote:
>I agree with this in principle. There is a problem
>since, unlike conversation, it is not possible to
>use non-verbal cues and pauses in the dialogue
>to gague response.
>
>But, Tad's right, I probably could have skipped
>saying this. I'll see what I can do.
>
>(Does this also count as clutter? Shoot!)

No it's most welcome! As long as you say I am *right* :-)

Seriously, the whole 3x set of rules is about long quotations of previous
posts, and a,b,c... are variations of reasons for them. I agree that
agreeing is desirable and it also improves the entire atmosphere of the
discussion. It's much nicer than saying "nonsense" or "wrong again". Let's
express our agreements as well as disagreements.

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159

Next message: Brett Lane Robertson: "Re: virus: education and the state"
Previous message: David McFadzean: "Re: virus: Nature of Information"
Maybe in reply to: Reed Konsler: "virus: Tad's rule #3d and e"