Your mis-step was not in posting to several lists but in putting all of them in header of the same
message. Robert noted that this might lead less e-mail savvy members to reply to groups to
which they did not belong by hitting the "Reply" button. If you had them all in the main address
field this would have been a problem. However, since you seemed to have them in the "cc"
field, I am less certain that this would have occurred unless someone hit the "reply to all"
button.
My personal feeling is that Robert was trying to be helpful by assisting in net-nannying.
However, I personally (if I had noticed and saw it as a concern) would have probably not
replied with someone like you targeted in the way Robert did. Since you seem to be an emeritus
professor at the University of Puget Sound, I particularly would be hesitant to trash you
whatever you did.
Again, I appreciate both Robert's attempts to improve the list and your valuable participation
in it. What is regretable is the lack of collegiality in this instance. Indeed, I think that this
incident might be valuable in suggesting more collegial ways to interact in the future. Living in
the New York City metro area, I am less sensitive to ungloved interactions than most list
members and probably overlook a lot of them.
Cybercollegially,
Charlie Wankel
listmaster mg-ed-dv
wankelc@stjohns.edu
Simon Priest wrote:
I've failed to get a response from Robert Bacal on repeated requests for
help understanding the E-message below and would like to ask folks on these
lists if multiple posting IS considered a NO-NO! A dozen other
(non-management) lists I subscribe to seem to accept and support this
approach. What do you think? R.B. I'd really like to hear from you on
this either privately or publicly. Thanks!
>Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:08:06 -0800
>To: rbacal@escape.ca
>From: "Simon Priest, Ph.D." <spriest@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us>
>Subject: Please help me to understand your responses
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>At 01:34 +0000 1998/07/01, Robert Bacal wrote:
>
> >Due to repeated crosspostings all your mail will now be
> >autodeleted at this site effective immediately. If you
> >need to contact us you can do so by phone or fax, but
> >clearly, no longer, by e-mail.
>
>Robert, I have to ask you a few questions (please don't take these as
>being argumentative as my intent is to clarify). I am confused as to why
>you would send me messages like the above and these below:
>
> >auto-rejected crosspost.
> >auto-rejected crosspost
> >Autorejected cross post
>
>First, are these really autorejected (the differing syntax suggests
>otherwise)?
>
>Second, why would you "reject" information that might prove useful to you?
>
>Third, why not simply use the delete button (as I do with repetitious
>postings)?
>
>Fourth, your response seems hostile to me and I was wondering whether you
>have considered alternative ways of communicating these concerns with
>folks (because I've seen similar comments repeated by you on some of the
>discussion lists)?
>
>Fifth, the subject line I used was my attempt to remind people not to post
>back in error (and this was done in response to your public posting about
>my error). Would you like to know why I prefer to send multiple posts not
>separate ones?
>
>Last, since I am sending this to you through two of my other E-addresses,
>I would think your filters haven't been set up to "autoreject" me in this
>way and therefore, I would expect you to receive this E-message. However,
>if I don't hear back from you, I will assume you have successfully blocked
>me and will try repeating my inquiry on the public lists in hopes that you
>receive it and can help clear up my confusion. Thanks for taking time to
>answer my questions.
>
>
>
REGARDS! Simon.
===================================================================
Simon Priest, PhD, retired prof. & founding member of "eXperientia"
"eXperientia" is a non-profit international consulting consortium
(in latin) "eXperientia" means conscious learning for life derived
from purposeful reflection on direct participation in action events