Enneagram Type 4 Board Archive

Re: An example thread--my idea of using threads

Re: An example thread--my idea of using threads

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ronnie on September 04, 1999 at 02:21:48:

In Reply to: Re: An example thread, PLEASE do NOT post to this posted by Ronnie on September 04, 1999 at 02:05:06:

: : Now it's a good time the look at the time/date of the postings. A newer white circled reply is always above an older one.

True.

: : Yes, not all people include the original message, because it can always be read elsewhere in the thread and sometimes clutters up things really bad. Besides, if you only type a couple lines at the bottom of a 50-line message, at least I find it annoying to go through something I've already read elsewhere.

I agree with you, Mr. Smith

: : Ronnie

This is another style some people use.

So, how you should deal with the threads? I can only tell what I do and what seems to work.

If someone posts a message asking something like "Do fours often wake up in the mornings and what should I do with this problem?" it would look something like this: (bc=blue circle, wc=white circle, bs=blue square and I do hope this message field will deal with this well)

(bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (0)

Assuming three people would reply, each having something individual to say, they'd reply to the original question:

(bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (3)
(wc) Re: Do fours wake up? - MF 03:00 12/31/1999 (0)
(wc) Mondays - GF 05:00 12/31/1999 (0)
(wc) I do! - OP 06:24:32 12/31/1999 (0)

NOT like this, that someone first reads through the replys and adds his/hers own opinion to the last:

(bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (3)
(wc) Re: Do fours wake up? - MF 03:00 12/31/1999 (0)
(wc) Mondays - GF 05:00 12/31/1999 (1)
(bs) I do! - OP 06:24:32 12/31/1999

just because OP isn't replying to GF in this case, so why should OP follow up GF's message? This is something that very easily makes things confusing.

However, if the case was that NN asked, MF replied, GF objected and OP voiced his opinion too:

bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (3)
(wc) Re: Do fours wake up? - MF 03:00 12/31/1999 (2)
(bs) How can you say that? - GF 05:00 12/31/1999 (1)
(bs) GF has a point - OP 06:24:32 12/31/1999 (0)

just because GF had something to say to MF and OP to GF. That's how it goes in real life (hopefully), if Mary comes to a bunch of people (John, Andrew and Ron) and asks their opinions about something, John hopefully doesn't reply to Andrew.

My take on this

Ronnie

Follow Ups:

But how? Ronnie 03:00:13 9/04/99 (12)
- Re: oh, Ronnie, you post so well Cecil 04:02:38 9/04/99 (11)
  - Re: oh my gosh, no, I forgot; need behavior limit check Cecil 20:17:02 9/04/99 (9)
    - Re: oh my gosh, no, I forgot; need behavior limit check DEECEE 21:06:46 9/04/99 (8)
      - Re:please forgive me Cecil 14:47:28 9/05/99 (1)
        
        Re:please forgive me Ronnie 14:59:05 9/05/99 (0)
      - Re: oh,oh, I' m going to get 'slammed' now, (I think?) Cecil 14:13:45 9/05/99 (0)
      - Re: With whom are you speaking with? Cecil 13:13:40 9/05/99 (4)
        
        Re: With whom are you speaking with? Tiggy Pom Pom 18:32:55 9/05/99 (3)
        
        Re: To Miss Piggy Sam 20:02:13 9/05/99 (2)
        
        Re: To Miss Piggy Miss Tiggy, (if you DON'T mind!) 19:16:00 9/06/99 (1)
        
        Re: To Miss Piggy Ev 21:17:03 9/06/99 (0)
  - Re: oh, Ronnie, you post so well Ronnie 04:05:18 9/04/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : Now it's a good time the look at the time/date of the postings. A newer white circled reply is always above an older one. : True. : : : Yes, not all people include the original message, because it can always be read elsewhere in the thread and sometimes clutters up things really bad. Besides, if you only type a couple lines at the bottom of a 50-line message, at least I find it annoying to go through something I've already read elsewhere. : I agree with you, Mr. Smith : : : Ronnie : This is another style some people use. : So, how you should deal with the threads? I can only tell what I do and what seems to work. : If someone posts a message asking something like "Do fours often wake up in the mornings and what should I do with this problem?" it would look something like this: (bc=blue circle, wc=white circle, bs=blue square and I do hope this message field will deal with this well) : (bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (0) : Assuming three people would reply, each having something individual to say, they'd reply to the original question: : (bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (3) : (wc) Re: Do fours wake up? - MF 03:00 12/31/1999 (0) : (wc) Mondays - GF 05:00 12/31/1999 (0) : (wc) I do! - OP 06:24:32 12/31/1999 (0) : NOT like this, that someone first reads through the replys and adds his/hers own opinion to the last: : (bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (3) : (wc) Re: Do fours wake up? - MF 03:00 12/31/1999 (0) : (wc) Mondays - GF 05:00 12/31/1999 (1) : (bs) I do! - OP 06:24:32 12/31/1999 : just because OP isn't replying to GF in this case, so why should OP follow up GF's message? This is something that very easily makes things confusing. : However, if the case was that NN asked, MF replied, GF objected and OP voiced his opinion too: : bc) Do fours wake up? - NN 01:00:00 12/31/1999 (3) : (wc) Re: Do fours wake up? - MF 03:00 12/31/1999 (2) : (bs) How can you say that? - GF 05:00 12/31/1999 (1) : (bs) GF has a point - OP 06:24:32 12/31/1999 (0) : just because GF had something to say to MF and OP to GF. That's how it goes in real life (hopefully), if Mary comes to a bunch of people (John, Andrew and Ron) and asks their opinions about something, John hopefully doesn't reply to Andrew. : My take on this : Ronnie : :

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type4board/messages/2168.html

Your Ad Here