[mythtv-users] gmail users (was Re: Chanell changing problem over firewire using sa3250ch)

[Michael T. Dean]

On 02/25/06 20:28, Ken Beal wrote:

> Okay, so the answer to my polite request is that bandwidth is a 
> concern.  The example given was 50 KB, so I'll focus on that: 50 KB 
> costs almost nothing to transmit, almost nothing to store, and (the 
> text) provides value for new readers.

Actually, IMHO, the answer is that people don't take the time to read 
even the important parts of many of the messages that are posted to the 
list, so burying the information so deeply that it's hard to find 
doesn't help anyone.  Trimming irrelevant sections to make it easier to 
read the parts that apply to the current message does help.

The reason why having all the old text is not required is because people 
*should* trim out unrelated information and leave only the parts of the 
message to which they are responding...  If you really feel that having 
*all* of the old text is useful, /you/ should store all the 
messages--even those you've read--in /your/ mail system 
(client/server).  If you are deleting old messages, /you/ are signing up 
to take the responsibility to run a search on the archives ( 
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/ ) to find the old text 
when necessary.  (I delete previously-read messages, but I search the 
archives when required.)

> My time is valuable, and I would like to spend it getting value from, 
> and adding value to, a user community.  Not deleting text.

If you're not trimming the reply to properly quote only *relevant* 
information, you're not adding value...

> PPPS Why won't you start on top-posting?  It seems like the world is 
> moving in that direction,

Thanks to Microsoft LookOut and LookOut Express.

> otherwise Gmail's interface would have been designed differently.

Wow.  I didn't realize that GMail was made the reference implementation 
of a mail client.  Guess I missed that announcement.  ;)

> PPPPS It's interesting that, on the mythtv-dev list, one of the people 
> participating in this current discussion just said: "Which is exactly 
> what I said in my post (which was cut from Colin's reply)."  He also 
> said a bit lower, "That applies for parts of the same movie, but is 
> not the case for multiple movies with the same name--which was the 
> point of my post (which you've cut from the reply)..."

As the guy who wrote that, I just want to point out (for proper 
attribution):
    1) I can be considered to have participated "in this current 
discussion" if you consider any post to this thread as participating in 
this current discussion.  However, my only post in this thread was not 
discussing the merits of trimming replies, but recommending a way to 
filter based on e-mail body content. (See 
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/185932#185932 )
    2) The actual quotes are from the message "Re: [mythtv] 
[mythtv-commits] Ticket #1354: MythVideo fails to display files with 
square brackets in properly" ( 
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mytoint of 
viewhtv/dev/184376#184376 ).
    3) I'm only now getting involved in the discussion of the issue 
because of being quoted in this thread.  ;)

>   So, it seems that deleting text is already causing inefficiencies in 
> communication on this very forum (well, the developer side of this forum).

Only if the person deleting the text does so improperly.  However, I 
will actually go so far as to make the argument that Colin's deleting 
too much information from my reply actually helped me to understand his 
post better.  Because he deleted the most important part of my reply 
(the part that actually pointed out the bug), I knew he didn't 
understand its importance and did not grasp the distinction between the 
two issues I was discussing (one which was explaining the behavior of 
something that was incorrectly reported to be a bug and the other which 
identified the real bug).  Therefore, I was able to refer back to those 
parts to emphasize their importance.  So, Colin, thanks for trimming 
your reply so I could better understand your point of view.  :)

Mike