-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jen, I apologize for all personal references in the prior email of this
"topic". The rant was excessive and any personal references were
unwarranted. It appears that there is an error in my understanding of
how threads are working on the FSL list.
I am constantly annoyed to see confusion in the email threads of the
list. What I see in my email client (mozilla - thunderbird), is a
threaded history of messages on the list. I use the options:
view - sort by - threaded
So, for example, I see the following email thread hierarchy:
[FSL] surface curvature - from DW
-> Re: [FSL] surface curvature - from BF
-> Re: [FSL] surface curvature - from GR
-> Re: [FSL] surface curvature - from BF
-> Re: [FSL] Contrast estimates and 90% CIs - from JL
-> Re: [FSL] Contrast estimates and 90% CIs - from SS
- From this hierarchy, there is a clear inconsistency in the "topic" of
the thread. I see this sort of "thread" confusion a lot and this time
it happened to a thread that I started and take particular interest in.
I guess that tipped my annoyance over the edge. Sorry.
What I see in the thunderbird email threads is not how these messages
are organized in the FSL jiscmail web browser. It uses "topics" to sort
list messages, which appear to depend on the message subject (despite
header details to the contrary). In this system, there is no connection
in the messages noted above. So, there is an inconsistency between how
the Thunderbird email client presents threads and how they appear on the
FSL list web archives. For example, this is a link to Jen's email:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0703&L=FSL&D=0&I=6&m=10519&P=2214
It is a new "topic" and one of only 2 messages in that "topic". There
is no reference in the archives to my topic on "surface curvature" at
all. Also, this link to my rant:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0703&L=FSL&D=0&I=6&m=10519&P=3843
indicates that it is an isolated message in a new "topic". At the time
of viewing it, there were no other messages in this "topic" and it did
not appear to be a reply to any prior "topic" (yet I know that it was!).
This is clearly not what I see in the Thunderbird email client, which is
using "threads" rather than "topics" to determine the hierarchy of
emails on the list. I am constantly getting thread hierarchies with
different "topics". It is really annoying and I don't know how to view
the fsl list in an economical, accurate thread format.
It appears that anytime someone just changes the subject, it creates a
new "topic" in the fsl list, even if they have replied to a previous
email. However, a new topic is not necessarily a new "thread". The
email headers keep track of where things are coming from and going to.
It keeps "references". Maybe this information gets lost, somehow, in
the email "cloaking" system of the fsl list server? I am puzzled that
others have not noticed this - surely I am not alone in using
Thunderbird and viewing messages in threads? I think most email systems
will read all the details of the email headers, including their
references. These are details of the thread tracking system that are,
apparently, not universally applied.
I wrote the prior email in this "topic" from this perspective. It's
come to my attention that this thread hierarchy is not apparent to
everyone. I am now confused about how fsl messages are threaded. This
appears to be a technical problem. Jen, I am sorry for that email I
sent to you. I'm sorry the prior email involved Jen, it is not a
personal issue. Mistakes can happen. I guess Jen is a very nice person
and I apologize for raising this particular issue in relation to her
specific email. That was not appropriate.
Take care, Darren
Darren Weber wrote:
>
> ### EMAIL ETIQUETTE RANT ###############
>
> You replied to my email subject, with a blatant change in the topic. I
> am annoyed by the way your email was submitted to this list. I am now
> creating a reply to your subject, changing the subject in the process.
> Are you annoyed too?
>
> Email systems respect threads, making it possible to read high-volume
> email lists, like this one, in a threaded mode, where threads can be
> handled efficiently by subject. All email programs work with the email
> protocols that take into account the subject or thread continuity of all
> messages (check the detailed headers).
>
> We do not have unlimited time to read email. Some email lists are high
> volume and it is most efficient to receive and view email from these
> lists in threads, defined by the subject. Please respect the subjects
> of email list postings.
>
> Every new posting creates a new thread with a new subject. There is a
> very clear difference in both meaning and function of the "new message"
> vs. "reply" or "reply-all" methods of sending email.
>
> Some submissions to this list are new mail, but the submission is made
> as a reply to a current posting. The submission changes the subject,
> and replaces all the prior content with a new message.
>
> Please do not do that. If you want to submit a new message, please use
> your email client to draft a new message. Most email clients will help
> you find the email address. It may seem easier or faster for you to
> reply to the last email from the list, but it will make it harder for
> hundreds or thousands of other people to find that new message, which
> will get buried in the prior thread. It is more time consuming for the
> readers to find new subjects. It will "confuse" the thread system and
> the new message will disappear from a short list of threads in the email
> archives.
>
> If you have a new subject and you want to get replies to your subject,
> please create a new message. Please do not reply to a current subject
> with anything other than genuine comments on that subject.
>
> If you receive an email message that is clearly off-topic, please email
> this rant to the person who sent the email. Use some discretion,
> sometimes topic associations can be loose, as one subject may raise many
> issues. In cases of blatant and continuous abuse, despite many attempts
> to educate the user, remove the subscriber from the list.
>
> ### END RANT ###############
>
>
> J Labus wrote:
>>> In SPM 99, one could get the Beta and SE values that went into creating
>>> this
>>> plot by typing beta and SE. In SPM2 there is no variable called "SE". How
>>> can I access the SE used to create the 90% CI bars? Also, am i correct in
>>> assuming the betas are still the contrast estimates?
>>>
>>> Jen labus
>>>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFF7G8QxaCYN7qs0v4RArKuAJ9GP9qYtqIXljxiyz0NFX8E05NxoQCfRIaW
wMdnYpGPM9GcnJhPfwjZ2OI=
=NYv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
