At 12:17 PM -0800 01/03/1998, Michael Price wrote:

>Michael Kennedy writes:
>
>>The reply to list feature is different from many lists and I think this may
>>be one of the things that helps make tweeters special. More of the
>>discussion winds up in public view where everyone can benefit from it.
>
>Sure is what I like about it. 'Pace' Hal O., I'd fear that if the default
>were to the person posting, there's be an inevitable fragmentation of
>discussion.

Hello Michaels (and all).

Lists like tweeters serve more than one function, it seems to me. In many
cases -- and the present thread is a good example -- the idea is to
stimulate an open discussion, share ideas, work them over. In other cases
the idea is to convey significant information on an agreed-upon topic
(birds) on a timely need-to-know basis. In my experience, half or more of
the tweeters posts fall into the latter category -- on a good day, at
least. And the "Reply To" needs are different for each.

I would say that I find it appropriate to reply to individual senders far
more often (say, four times out of five) than to the whole list. This is
true especially of replies to the "information" types of posts, where one
might want to add an observation, or request a clarification, or answer a
question, or offer a correction, or open up a related topic, on matters
that would (in the replier's judgment) not be of any particular interest or
benefit to a majority of the subscribers.

So, assuming that mistakes will be made (Murphy is always right): which is
better, to make a mistake that results in a reply being sent only to the
author of a message rather than to the whole list as intended (an omission
of which subscribers will be blissfully unaware and, most often, will leave
them no worse off), or a mistake that results in the whole list receiving a
reply that was intended for a single person, resulting all or most of the
time in mass annoyance if not embarrassment?

That is why, in my (perhaps minority) opinion, I believe that tweeters
should have its "Reply To" set to default to the author of the message to
which one is replying. There would be essentially no negative consequences
if you screwed up. Posting to the entire list should be a deliberate
decision resulting in a fully conscious act. I mean, aren't we by nature
more cautious, and careful of appearances, when know we're going out in
front of an audience? Going public carries with it a big responsibility
and should not be undertaken casually. So, put the fail-safe protection
where it belongs -- on the "Reply To" feature of the list.

Or, maybe, as has been suggested from time to time before, what we really
need is two lists, one for information flow and the other for exchange of
opinion. Tweeters and Woofers (ah, the dreaded dog thread!). They could
have different content guidelines for posting and different "Reply To"
default settings. One could subscribe to either or to both, depending on
personal preference and the limits of one's endurance.

Hal Opperman