Re: SAVING BANDWIDTH
Settummanque, the blackeagle (waltoml@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU)
Mon, 22 Nov 1993 14:02:22 CDT
(I've tried to condense as much as I can, but Carroll does have some
valid points....) :
"E. C. HALE" <ARTHALE%EKU.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> writes:
> I would like to comment on the needless use of bandwidth that
>seems endemic on this list. I would like to start by saying that I agree
>with the basics of the comments made by Ben Hall, Jim Sleezer, Gina Gestautas,
>Scott Begin and Ben Parker. Many of us have restricted accounts and would
>appreciate concise messages. The necessity for informational signature files
>due to stripped headers is obvious. Further, the need to quote in reply is
> (I've checked with EKU's system managers on this)
>Every character sent takes up bandwidth. (Nota bene, I'm not picking on
>Mike Walton - it's just that his signature line is well known.) Therefore,
>items like Mike's coffee cup don't just "take up space", they use bandwidth.
True...it does. However, as you see, the "cup" is contained in the
same lines as the rest of the "information", therefore, no additional
lines are used. And it is those lines of messages that many are
objecting to, not neccessarily the content of the messages.
> I suggest that borders (e.g. -=-=-=-=), other decorative elements,
>and unnecessary information (e.g. Major . . . among other endearing terms)
>be avoided. Stick to name, primary or pertinent scouting position, addresses
>(e-mail and other), and 'phone numbers.
That's a great suggestion, and one that I will consider. In
"designing" this signature, I attempted to "cover all possible bases"
since I use my University account as a employee (with my title at
work, and it's phone number) as a participant on three
Scouting-related lists ( with the "defination" of "settummanque" and
both e-mail addresses) and as a "military person" (with my military
rank). This prevents me from "creating" three or four separate
signature files to meet each occasion, since I move in and out of each
role many times in a given day.
But later on today, I WILL remove the other decorative elements (the
lines above and below the "information".
If I was to create a "sig file" for each and every role I play, the
main part of my account would be full of "sig file1, sigfile 2," etc.
I suscribe to Jim's comment of making it simple and fun (hence, the
> IMO, when it comes to "quote-in-reply" messages, it is rarely
>necessary to quote over a line or two from the original message. The readers
>of this list aren't dense and, apparently, have excellent memories!
I don't have a great memory, and I would rather comment to someone's
EXACT words or comments, rather than to attempt to summarize what I
"thought" they were saying and replying to that. That got me in
trouble when I did that once here a while back and someone CORRECTLY
reminded me that "that's NOT what I said...please don't try to rewrite
what I say here."
Also, Carroll, when we are in the midst of discussing something which
has went on and on (like the peer pressure in Scouting string), it is
really hard to remember exactly WHAT someone said and those
comments...even if they take up six, seven or twenty lines, serves to
remind the reader of what was said about the current comment.
> As has been stated before, entirely too many messages addressed to
>the list are really meant for only one person and should be sent privately.
>I'm referring here to the "welcome" messages and the answers to very specific
>queries that are not of general interest. (Caveat: when in doubt, post it to
>the list - someone besides the questioner may want to know.)
I try to answer all personal mail sent to me by return mail to that
person. On occasion, I will ask that person if he or she don't mind
me sharing a copy of their and my posting to the list, because in my
experience, I've found that for every person asking a question on this
list, there are about three or four others that wondered "Ummmm...I
wonder that too....I hope someone will respond to the list on it!"
Therefore, I agree with you on this point as well...
However, there's many times that a question would be asked of me or
Kathie or Don or Chris or Tom Bennett as in "Hey, does anyone know how
to wear the Order of the Arrow Sash with the Merit Badge sash??
Nathan? Kathie?" with the "implied intent" of getting EVERYONE's
input, but specifically those of the persons "asked". In those cases,
I don't have a problem with someone asking a question of me through
the list and I returning the answer through the list as well.
If someone on the list sends a posting to the list and asks for
replies to that person, I'll do that too.
> Finally, (low flame) I, and several others who read this list, are
>not impressed by the self-congratulatory, "puff", messages of the type that
>usually run somewhat in the following manner; "my troop/pack went hiking/
>caamping/attended PowWow/etc. and we (long list of things) - (implied) aren't
>I/we wonderful?! I, and the others, understand that some of these messages
>are exemplary. Many are not. If your desire is to be "puffed", send the
>message to youself and save SCOUTS-L bandwidth. (turn burner off)
But Carroll, that's one of things that distinguished this list from
that of other forums...our mutual support of each other and our
programs. While you and others don't really care about Peter's
efforts in getting a quality program, or Nathan's frustrations with
his OA chapter, or the ongoing stuggles of getting Scouts to meetings
and activities, I for one *do* care, since it wasn't too long ago
when those same people (and others) wrote here asking for help from ALL of us.
Reading others' successes, their personal and professional
accomphishments and even their frustration, anger, fright (remember
Kathie's frantic search for her son?? Remember when folks had
operations or had to leave us because of some personal concern?? They
MISSED US...and we really did miss them too!) at things inside the
program and outside makes us a stronger group and makes us all feel
that we're not "working in a bubble" or "doing something wrong" --that
many of the same things are experienced by others all over the
nation and indeed, all over the world (Right, David Miller??).
So I would not only welcome those "puffed" messages but I do find time
to reply back (privately of course) to give them additional
encouragement. That's the least I would want of everyone if I posted
a similiar note explaining my frustration at starting a unit in
Franklin (as I did earlier this fall).
One of the reasons that it was successful, and many of the comments heard
from our first gathering at the Jamboree, wwentalong the lines of
"Man, I feel that I've known you forever...." That feeling you don't get
from just reading questions and answers...you get that from knowing the
high and low points of those whom choose to interact with their machines
AND the people reading the notes on the other side!
Many of the comments I get to read here daily centers around this very
issue. "You people are too silly sometimes", several asked during our
"Woodbadge run" (in which, remember, you participated in...so did I).
"Why don't you have a question and answer session instead of this "I
remember in 1942" crap". "You all sound like you're trying to one-up
each other". To each, I answer the same way: This list has long
evolved from that of a "you ask and I answer" forum, because we
understand that giving you a simple answer to a complex question is
not only stupid, but very unfair to you and others asking.
We do spend a lot of time talking about what you perceive as "silly".
But if you ever went to a Cub Scouting event, a Boy Scout outdoor
activity, or an Exploring conference, you will find equally "silly"
things there as well. Perhaps our ability to laugh, cry and tease
each other over the years have bounded all of us together in ways that
those adults you have laughed, cried and teased at home have done the
same. So, yeah, we do some "silly" things here...but it is ALL done
in a spirit of friendship, service and mutual respect for all here --
new or old.
As I've stated here many, many times, the true success of this list
is NOT that of a small group of people answering questions for the vast
majority...it is that of us ALL responding and "holding the cards" which
will help ME to do better in my Scouting jobs. Then, on my own, I can
"pick and choose" what "advice" to take and which approach I should
work toward. That's what makes it all worth the reading of ALL of the
mail....even that which (like Mike Walton's) goes on and on and on...
Mike L. Walton (and on and on and on and ON!)
Settummanque, the blackeagle... )
(MAJ) Mike L. Walton (
AIS/MR Recreation Specialist, Lifeskills Inc. ___)_
Voice 502-782-7992 (home) 502-842-2274 (office) |-=-|]
3201-D Cave Springs Avenue -- Greenwood, KY 42104-4439 --------
"Not speaking for Lifeskills, Inc. or WKU...but I do speeches !!!!"
WALTOML@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU (Internet) KYBLKEAGLE@AOL.COM (America Online)
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City