[OT] phrasing of e-mails [was: Re: [plug] accessing a NT folder]

[James Devenish]

In message <3EEED9E4.3080507 at iinet.net.au>
on Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 05:05:41PM +0800, Andrew Pamment wrote:
> Hmm. I didn't explicitly quote anyone.. you weren't reading between the 
> lines were you :-)

You weren't posting without snipping, were you?! :-)
(You had included two previous e-mail messages in your
own post and I assumed it was intentional.)

> you felt guilty...

?!?!?!?

> Your email replying to John's email although didn't say "stop
> suggesting things" did seem to put him down and I thought that was
> inappropriate. This is a public forum, and the posts are archived.

That's actually the reason I ended up writing a follow-up to your
message. It was clear that at least two people had thought I had
said something that I didn't think I had said :/

(Aside: I couldn't think of a quick way to incorporate Linux into this
e-mail, so I have marked it [OT], as I do from time to time when I know
I am writing an e-mail that won't include an answer to a Linux problem.
I use [OT] as a warning device for list readers ;)

> I have upset people in the past and I don't want to do it again. If
> you are going to post regularly,

Well, I do post regularly (69 posts since the end of Jan, an average of
one message every two days) and if happen to be getting any general
feedback as to my writing style, I must have a "blind spot" that
prevents me from seeing it. -->This sentence is an open invitation to
all list members to tell me what I'm doing wrong (but please don't send
large attachments, as my e-mail incurs byte charges :).<--

> I think it would be wise to word your emails a bit better.

Okay, point taken. But I don't know where to start. I can't see where
I've said or suggested "don't post from a work address" or "you
shouldn't be an idiot by posting something obscure". I didn't even
*think* those things. As I understand my "original message" (the one
that might have been called a "flame" by another poster), I:

 - acknowledged John's variety of options,
 - indicated there should be a commonplace solution to the problem,
 - explained what I had understood about the original post,
 - mentioned what I thought about doing the transfer with an NT script
   (which turned out to be irrelevant since the script was running under
   Linux---which wasn't actually stated in the original).

<shrug/> Cameron Patrick once sent us his own jocular idea: "In future I
shall try to remember to include smileys and/or exclamation marks
whenever I am not offended!!!!!!! :-)" Perhaps I should include
footnotes whenever I am not trying to offend someone[1]. Then I can use
a "mad" smiley >:-< whenever I /want/ to leer at someone :)

> the quality of this list is entirely up to it's members.

LOL (I'll choose to interpret the "it's" as a self-effacing
flaw aimed to lighten the mood :)

FOOTNOTES

[1] This is a footnote.