Thinking the list should be aware of this, I'm sending to the list.
In response to you, Brian Barker - who doesn't seem to be listed as
a moderator BTW, I'm copying here part of the rules:
"To release it to the list, please send a message to <> which can usually be
done simply by replying to this message"
which does not state there is only one way - note 'usually' -
therefore when a message has not been released to the list,
yet I think it should be, I will so do ... & if I have
something to say in response, I shall so do.
From: Brian Barker <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] local help
To: Anne Noname <[hidden email]>
At 21:11 26/10/2016 -0500, you wrote:
Many on this list use LO writer, etc. - although many do not live in
> California; ..
> From: Dan Devor <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] > Cc:
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:24:25 -0700
> Subject: [libreoffice-users] local help
> I live in Riverside California...
As patiently requested previously, please, *please* don't just reply to
messages that have not appeared on the list. If you approve them, release
them first to the list and reply to the list copy. Anything else will
confuse people and break the threading. It's very easy just to get it
right; please just do so.
It looks to me and to others that despite being one of the moderators of this
mailing list, you may not be fully aware of the role and responsibility such
a title entails. Below are two links to the Netiquette and standard
guidelines for good behaviours on mailing list. These guidelines have existed
pretty much since the beginning of the Internet and Usenet groups (well in
You may choose to disregard them completely, even though most, if not all of
them are strongly accepted and desired behaviour. We are a community, and it
works better when people adhere to its basic rules. Disclosing private emails
makes list subscribers very uncomfortable, no matter how you feel about
I hope this will help you,
Charles-H. Schulz Co-founder, The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.
>From: Brian Barker
>Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:02 PM
>To: Anne Noname <[hidden email]>
>>As patiently requested previously, please,
>>*please* don't just reply to messages that have
>>not appeared on the list. If you approve them,
>>release them first to the list and reply to the
>>list copy. Anything else will confuse people
>>and break the threading. It's very easy just to
>>get it right; please just do so.
>Thinking the list should be aware of this, I'm
>sending to the list. In response to you, Brian
>Barker - who doesn't seem to be listed as a
>moderator BTW, I'm copying here part of the
>rules: "To release it to the list, please send a
>message to <> which can usually be done simply
>by replying to this message" which does not
>state there is only one way - note 'usually' -
>therefore when a message has not been released
>to the list, yet I think it should be, I will so
>do ... & if I have something to say in response, I shall so do.
o I was courteous enough to make my suggestion
privately, so as not to embarrass you. It is
inappropriate for you to publicise my private
correspondence (though I am in no way embarrassed
by it). It is also weird that you should want to
advertise your mistake to people around the world. But chacun à son goût.
o No, of course I am not a moderator, but that
doesn't stop my noticing your mistake. I don't
need to be a murderer to know that murder is a Bad Thing.
o The "rule" you quote invites you to send *a*
message - not *the* query message in question -
in order to release the query message to the
list. To do this, you reply to the moderation
request, not to the original message, and you
send the reply not to the list itself but to the
list processor, of course. You have cheekily
excised the appropriate address (not the list's
address) from the angle brackets in your
quotation above. That different address would
make very clear the meaning of the "rule".
o The "usually" does not mean what you claim. It
doesn't mean that there are alternatives - though
indeed there are. It means that replying to the
moderation request (to the list processor, not
the list) will work if the list processor has
been configured to allow that method. In any
case, the alternative will almost certainly be to
use a web interface to the list processor. It
will certainly not be to cut the text of the
original message from your moderation request and
to create a new message and thread as if from you.
o Of course you are very welcome to make your own
comments on messages; you implication that this
is being criticised is a straw man. But the way
to do that - as I patiently explained again above
- is first to approve the message and then, if
you wish, to reply to it. But for the threading
to work properly and for people to be able to see
what is happening, you need to reply to the copy
of the original message that - like other
subscribers - you will receive from the list once
it has been approved, not to carve up the
moderation request and misuse that to create a new message of your own.
There is no shame in not understanding things or
indeed in making mistakes. But it is reasonable
that when things are explained to you or errors
pointed out, you should remedy the problem. I'm
guessing that there must be other moderators and
that they could help you get up to speed. If you
want to discuss this further (which I am happy to
do), may I suggest that we don't trouble the list with the conversations?