> Received: from SpoolDir by VELA (Mercury 1.48); 10 Apr 01 11:26:58 GMT+2
> Return-path: <owner-corpora@lists.uib.no>
> Received: from noralf.uib.no (129.177.30.12) by Vela.filg.uj.edu.pl (Mercury 1.48) with ESMTP;
> 10 Apr 01 11:26:55 GMT+2
> Received: from majordomo by noralf.uib.no with local (Exim 3.16)
> id 14muIX-0003WG-00; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:18:53 +0200
> Received: from helmer.hit.uib.no [129.177.24.41]
> by noralf.uib.no with esmtp (Exim 3.16)
> id 14muIW-0003WA-00; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:18:52 +0200
> Received: from sfinx.let.uu.nl (sfinx.let.uu.nl [131.211.194.48])
> by helmer.hit.uib.no (8.8.7/8.8.7/IDA) with ESMTP id LAA10798
> for <corpora@hd.uib.no>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:14:34 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from let.uu.nl (pcm1876.let.uu.nl [131.211.197.76])
> by sfinx.let.uu.nl (8.11.2/8.11.2/SYSADM) with ESMTP id f3A9InS20756;
> Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:18:49 +0200 (MEST)
> Message-ID: <3AD2CFEB.6A056227@let.uu.nl>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:18:35 +0200
> From: Steven Krauwer <steven.krauwer@let.uu.nl>
> Organization: Utrecht University / ELSNET
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en,ko,tr
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Geoffrey Sampson <geoffs@cogs.susx.ac.uk>
> CC: corpora@hd.uib.no
> Subject: Re: Corpora: sloppiness in e-mails
> References: <E14mYij-0000N4-00@lune.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-corpora@lists.uib.no
> Precedence: bulk
> X-PMFLAGS: 34078848
>
> Geoffrey Sampson wrote:
>
> > With due respect to Ramesh, I can't see this myself. To me, sloppily-
> > expressed e-mails are just selfishness. In the days when written
> > communication went via paper, there was a clear social convention that the
> > burden was on the writer to make the reader's task as easy as possible by
> > putting in the effort necessary to produce the "cleanest" fair copy he
> > could.
> ...
> > I don't understand
> > what virtue there is in "spontaneity" that might offset this. Spontaneous
> > communication sounds like a polite way of referring to over-hasty,
> > ill-thought-out communication; we are all bombarded with far more
> > communications than we can deal with anyway, so I for one would much prefer
> > the incoming stuff to be carefully filtered by its senders before
> > transmission.
>
> There seems to be an underlying assumption here that emails should
> primarily be seen as the successors of written letters, transported
> via a different medium. I'm not so sure that this is the case. If I
> look at the emails I send out and receive, I can distinguish at least
> three different categories:
> - ordinary letters: the type Geoffrey is referring to
> - chat: quick, spontaneous communications
> - documents sent as attachments (reports, articles, etc)
>
> They are all used in different ways, in different contexts, and
> have different requirements.
>
> I write most of my ordinary letters off-line, in plain ASCII,
> with a decent editor, reasonably formatted, and sometimes even
> checked for typos and spelling errors, very much the way I did
> it before I started using computers.
>
> Chat is always written on-line, hardly ever corrected, poorly
> formatted -- very similar to what happens when I speak. Geofffrey,
> are you implying that this is an improper way of communicating, or
> is your message that even for spoken communication you would prefer
> people to read their (gramatically correct) sentences from a piece
> of paper?
>
> Attachments come in various types, some of which require special
> software, as Geoffrey correctly points out -- but isn't this a small
> and easy to remedy disadvantage compared to the advantage of being
> able to exchange documents (for information or for collaborative
> authoring) within seconds (as opposed to weeks as we had in the
> past)? It would of course have been much better if we had one
> generally accepted standard format for document exchange, just as
> it would have been easier if we all used the same metric system,
> the same voltage and the same currency.
>
> But I wonder how big the problem really is, and how many different
> formats we use in our day-to-day communications. I had a quick look
> at my own mail archive, and the only formats I encountered were
> MS Word, RTF, PostScript, PDF, LaTeX and HTML (plus a birthday
> card with music from my daughter).
>
> I don't remember to have spent more than a few minutes finding
> and installing viewers for each of them, except for LaTeX, which
> is indeed a real pain in the neck (and here I follow Geoffrey's
> strategy: off to the dustbin unopened -- and please do not
> interpret this as a quality judgement, because it is a wonderful
> product in many respects!).
>
> To summarize: I would say that Geoffrey is right about email
> letters, wrong in ignoring the spontaneous chat function of
> email, and he seems to be exaggerating the disadvanteges and
> ignoring the advantages of sending documents as attachments.
>
> Steven
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Steven Krauwer, UiL OTS, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, Nederland
> phone: +31 30 2536050, fax: +31 30 2536000, email: s.krauwer@let.uu.nl
> http://www-sk.let.uu.nl
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 10 2001 - 14:13:31 MET DST