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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|
