You bring up a very interesting question.  There are clearly people who do
not want the scores in the header.  They (I) have stated reasons why they
feel this way and their only option is to avoid their email during the
playoffs or to fiddle with filters and archiving to avoid  seeing the score
posted in a header.

The question is the other 99% ( I don't know whether 99% is an accurate
number but I have no better guess) .
If these people absolutely want to have the score in the header and have
some reason for wanting that option, I think we'd all like to hear those
reasons.  I can think of no compelling reason that someone needs to have the
scores in the header but that certainly doesn't mean that there isn't such a
reason.  If there are reasons for each option, then perhaps democracy or
majorities does have some place in the discussion.

I'm just assuming that most people don't care.  If there are no scores in
the headers and you want to know the score, it will cost you an extra click
to open the mail.  That's no big deal for me but maybe it is for others. Is
anyone in a situation where they can look at message headers but cannot open
their mail?

That's where I'm coming from in my courtesy remarks. If 1% of the people
would like no scores in the headers and have reason to want it that way, and
99% don't care, what harm can it do to avoid the headers?

I especially took offense at the header of the last message.  Now that
you've posted the score from the final game almost 48 hours in advance,
you've ruined it for all of us  ;-)


On 4/7/06, Bob Woodbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I don't know if democracy has anything to do with this question or not.
> Is it simply courtesy and if so, are we being courteous to one percent
> of the list who don't want to know as opposed to 99 percent who do or
> don't care, or are we being courteous to 99 percent of the list who
> don't want to know as opposed to one percent who does.
> I am one of those people who would have no idea about how to go about
> setting up a filtered e-mail. I am an older person who is happy to get
> by just knowing how to receive and send an e-mail. So that's a good point.
> But setting up a filtered e-mail, as has been done in the past, is also
> a good point. It worked in the past, then suddenly died. I'm just happy
> knowing the score is not a problem for me and I'm just curious as to
> whether knowing the score is a big problem for the majority or minority.
> And courtesy or not, I think it makes a difference here.
> I guess when games are not on television, this is a moot point and
> everyone wants to know the score.
> Everyone.
>
> Mark Lewin wrote:
>
> >I'm the one who started complaining about this for this year. although
> I'm
> >sure someone else would have , if I hadn't.  This does not affect me. I
> am
> >retired and had the luxury of watching the games on TV.  But it wasn't
> that
> >long ago that I was a working stiff and had to tape the afternoon game.
> >Then, of course, when I got home, I either had to tape the second game
> >(because, of course, the announcers of the second game always announced
> the
> >results of the first game), or, I had to watch the first game while
> taping
> >the second game (which, of course, assumes that one has two VCR's or
> DVR's
> >or whatever).
> >
> >As far as the Bob Hamilton's comment:  yes, we can create filters. In my
> >case with Google mail, I would have to create a label,  create a filter
> and
> >then auto archive the message. Otherwise the header shows.  But this is
> >missing the whole point .
> >
> >I was not suggesting that we suppress someones constitutional right to
> free
> >speech or even the freedom of the press. I have no idea how many people
> are
> >on the list that may have taped the game.  I have no idea how many are
> not
> >in a position to avoid looking at their email for a day or two while they
> >catch up on  watching games on tape.  And I have no idea how many people
> are
> >"unsophisticated" users and may not have the knowledge about how to
> create
> >filters or folders  for their email accounts.
> >
> >The point is this. There is a  reason most of us are on this list as
> opposed
> >to joining the testosterone boys on the USCHO fan forum.  There are a
> whole
> >lot of good, knowledgeable people on the fan forums but I just get sick
> and
> >tired of the know nothings who rant and rave and bully and act like
> >adolescents.  We don't have that on this list which is what makes it
> >special. The difference is courtesy; we're supposed to show it and we
> should
> >expect it in return. Rather than  forcing some unknown number of people
> to
> >create folders and filters on their email during playoff time, wouldn't
> it
> >be easier as well as more courteous to just adopt a convention that
> message
> >headers should not show scores or who wins or loses. The body of the
> message
> >can say anything it wants, it's just the header that ruins it for some.
> >Would it be so difficult to do that just for the sake of your fellow list
> >viewers?
> >
> >On 4/7/06, Dr. Bob Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Thought I would send this now to avoid having to spoil the fun in the
> >>future.  And as a warning of the seriousness of this issue should a
> >>clairvoyant be a member of the list.
> >>
> >>Some straightforward options seem available for those wishing to easily
> >>resolve conflict among list membership.
> >>1)  Have a Hockey L folder which does not have to be opened, as has just
> >>been mentioned..
> >>2)  Use the convention of an information post, such as the reporting of
> >>scores from Charlie Shub.  As I recall, the post subject contains I:
> which
> >>can be used as a filter on incoming mail to send these to their own
> >>folder.
> >>Seems this was agreed by list participants at one time.
> >>
> >>Bob Hamilton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>