At 03:09 +0200 on 14.07.98, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> One of the things that seems to make these tiffs into soap operas are the
> people who seem to catch up on a week's mail at a time and do not pay any
> attention to the dates of the mail they are replying to.
I quite agree on this point, and must confess that I am one of those who
[sometimes] replies ex. late to a thread - for several reasons; a) I`m in a
different timezone, b) I download my mail about once every day or two
(depending on how much work I have), c) I don`t always have time to
read/reply everything at once. So most of the mail I download is around 24
hrs by the time I download it, and it takes another 24 hrs for me to reply.
Minimum.
Now, if I`m backlogged, it may take a few days [read as: daze] before I get
round to replying. Sometimes even longer, if I`ve got 22-hr workdays. My
"golden rule" so far has been that mail older than 4 days (unless it`s
"important") I reply to the sender; otherwise it goes to the list. Of
course, sometimes I don`t check the date until it`s sent, and I`ve ended up
replying to a week or more old mail.
So, when is a thread to old to reply to? Is there a difference between a
thread that lasts several days and those that are over in 24 hrs? Am I
being a "pain" if my replies are sent 48 hrs after the last previous
mailing?
;-)
siri.
mailto:sbjoner@xxxxxxxxx fone: +47 9010 4635 fax: +47 9030 6420
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|