Piers, Apologies...I actually put them into one mail deliberately, because I didn't want to burn more mindspace than necessary...people could skim all my questions at once, answer those they were interested in, and be done. I didn't think about how this would impact the summaries.
In future, I'll split questions as you request. --Dks On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:00:38PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote: > David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Greetings all, > > > > Ok, it took me several days to get through A6, and I'm not caught up > > on all the mail yet (though I've tried to skim so I don't repeat > > someone else's question). I'm left with a bunch of questions; can > > anyone answer the following: > > [ list of 7 thematically unrelated questions, sharing only the fact > that they were sparked by the same Apocalypse ] > > Okay, I almost put this into the summary, but it's really something > internal to the list: > > Please, I'm begging you, when you have a bunch of questions about an > apocalypse which are otherwise only tangentially related, break the > list up into multiple posts. This thread is not the only offender by > far, but summarizing the responses to such a list is a complete > nightmare; I have to jump back and forth between posts, trying to > separate out the substrands so as to present something coherent. Or, I > just get pissed off with the whole affair and fail to do a good job of > summarizing. Also, if you split the questions up into multiple posts, > you have the opportunity to help me (and all other readers) still > further by coming up with meaningful subject lines for each > question. Trust me, a subject line of 'is static?' is way more useful > to the reader than 'A6 Questions' or 'Apoc 5 - some issues'. Also, if > you avoid 'grab bag' posts, you'll probably see more attention given > to your individual questions. > > Make my life easier, go on, you know you all want to. > > -- > Piers
