All posts in the topic Post style suggestions (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Andrew Groom at Sep 01 20:58 UTC
Hi Brian, On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 03:41 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote: > A further problem with the ERMA Agency report on the Lincoln AgResearch > proposed GM onions &c. controlled > trial: Thanks for keeping us up to date on this, although your post was so full of information it almost required an executive summary ! (for me, anyway :-). Also, a couple of little email style suggestions for everyone: 1. If you need to include some of the previous content of a topic in your email, it would be better if it was just the bit pertinent to your post, rather than the whole lot. This will make it easier for people to know what to read or not to read. Remember you can always catch up on the full content of the topic by following the topic link at the bottom of the page. Another reason to include most of a previous message is if you are responding to a post point by point. This is great, except that again you probably want to limit the amount of text you're repeating to just the points you're responding to and put your responses directly after the quoted text. 2. If you want to create a new topic that refers to a previous one, the practice of using a subject line, e.g., "Re: new topic (was: old topic)" is probably less useful than simply including a link to the web page for the previous topic in your new topic. This is relatively easy to do since a link to the current topic is included at the bottom of the message, e.g., for Brian's message: ... This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3XBhDpXti2kVNwCuLDAEmd More style suggestions here: http://onlinegroups.net/help/participation/contribute Cheers, Andrew.
andrew wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 03:41 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>> A further problem with the ERMA Agency report on the Lincoln AgResearch
>> proposed GM onions &c. controlled
>> trial:
>>
>
> Thanks for keeping us up to date on this, although your post was so full
> of information it almost required an executive summary ! (for me,
> anyway :-).
>
Rik had pointed out about the Feudalistic grabbing of our resources and
I was giving an example, with the faulty arguments which are being used
to try to justify it.
Resources are resources whether a land area, water moving through
various land areas, a radio spectrum, or a genetic spectrum.
and I earlier wrote:
"Now the NZ emissions trading scheme may go ahead we need to be very
vigilant that biofuel crops are not given a fictitious value. Then our
taxes would be falsely supporting them and very likely a push to grow
GMO crops here with their big thirst for water.
With the secrecy of the RGG how could we know? And if we cannot know
matters relating to publicly funded things that must degrade the value
of our right to freedom of expression."
I note that biofuels are not regarded as 'obligated' fuels in the Emissions
Bill. So by transferring to them the carbon tax can be avoided. There may be
some tax on them from the farming practices, which needs to be vigilantly
checked, so fuel crops do not too easily take over from food crops.
Hi Brian,
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 14:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
> > 1. If you need to include some of the previous content of a topic in
> > your email, it would be better if it was just the bit pertinent to your
> > post, rather than the whole lot.
> I remember these arguments especially from the old days when downloading
> at 2.4k rather than the 50K and more of today.
I think the issue is less about size and more about readability.
> > 2. If you want to create a new topic that refers to a previous one, the
> > practice of using a subject line, e.g., "Re: new topic (was: old topic)"
> > is probably less useful than simply including a link to the web page for
> > the previous topic in your new topic.
> Except that readers may miss that the new topic follows on from the old
> one as they do not see it in the subject line.
I would argue that the subject line should be pertinent enough to the
content of the post that interested readers will read it regardless of
the topic it follows on from. Another reason why good subject lines are
important ...
> What subject would you have given to this article?
I might have called it:
"GMO experiments in Canterbury may have effects outside controlled
areas"
With the subject you used:
"GMO experiments may have effects outside controlled areas (Was: Re:
Regoonal Government Group clarification needed.)"
there's no immediate significance to me in a reference to the RGG topic.
If anything a little link paragraph between this new topic and the RGG
topic would have been more helpful:
"This topic relates to the previous one on RGG in that yada yada yada.
More details at this link [link to previous topic]".