Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [M] A quick plea.
[M] A quick plea. [message #294648] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 11:25
Gideon Hallett  
Tags and subject lines...

(I'll try and keep this as brief as possible, honest.)

Tags:

I *think* I can say that the overall consensus in favour of /some/
form of tagging.

The effectiveness of any tagging system is dependent on people using
it in such a way as to make filtering possible.

(Or, indeed, using it at all.)

This means:

One set of tags (ideally!)

One tag per subject.

Now, the set of tags we have *are* currently under review, for
various good reasons; and it's entirely possible that some change
will be decided on by the group - but until this happens, would it
be possible for people to stick to the current system? - as
unilateral usage of non-standard tags pretty much obviates the
benefits of the tagging system.

While the use of various alternate forms of tagging was pretty much
the point of the '*I* a test of the old {[TAGS]' thread, the
alternate tags suggested there seem to have escaped to other
threads, and they're being used in a fairly inconsistent and ad hoc
fashion - which, frankly, does none of us any favours.

(I would personally argue against the habit of 'deactivating' tags
by placing some other delimiter around the letter; IMO, a tag
should represent what the thread is *currently* about, not what it
*was* about; and leaving surplus bits of superannuated tag around
reduces the utility of the tag in use.)


Subject lines.

Brief and snappy is good. Brief, snappy and *relevant* is wonderful.

The people reading your post probably don't need to know what the
subject was three or four generations of subject header back; and
if they're really desperate, they can check the threading or GG.

As such, the current subject and possibly the previous one are all
anyone really needs; a surfeit of subject topics comes across to me
in much the same way as poorly-trimmed posts; that the person in
question couldn't be bothered to do a trivial amount of editing
while replying to a post.

As such I would say that:

[I] Foo (was bar was wibble was baz was quux) - should be Considered
Harmful.

[I] Foo (was bar) - should be encouraged wherever possible.


These are *not* rules; merely suggestions; they should not be
interpreted as eternal truths, and are always up for discussion.

None of us is perfect, and all of us forget this sort of thing from
time to time; but a small amount of care paid to tags and subject
lines make the group a heck of a lot more accessible for people who
don't have the time to read the entire group - and that's something
that benefits all of us.

cheers,

Gideon.


--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #294655 ] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 11:56
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Gideon Hallett wrote:

> Now, the set of tags we have *are* currently under review, for
> various good reasons; and it's entirely possible that some change
> will be decided on by the group - but until this happens, would it
> be possible for people to stick to the current system? - as
> unilateral usage of non-standard tags pretty much obviates the
> benefits of the tagging system.

Agreed.

> (I would personally argue against the habit of 'deactivating' tags
> by placing some other delimiter around the letter; IMO, a tag
> should represent what the thread is *currently* about, not what it
> *was* about; and leaving surplus bits of superannuated tag around
> reduces the utility of the tag in use.)

I think the case for the use of deactivated tags is stronger on those
rare occasions where the tag is the only thing that has changed. For
example: "Re: [R] (was {I}) Elephants" when the previous subject line
was Re: [I] Elephants".

To the best of my memory there was no such thing as deactivated tags
when *old* tags were used; they seemed to come into existence some
time after the introduction of [new] tags.

> As such I would say that:
>
> [I] Foo (was bar was wibble was baz was quux) - should be Considered
> Harmful.
>
> [I] Foo (was bar) - should be encouraged wherever possible.

Agreed. This has long been my personal policy (only one "was") - but
of course, like everyone else I slip up on occasion.

Adrian.
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #294695 ] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 13:48
PeterH  
It all started on Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:25:31 +0100, when Gideon Hallett
wrote:

> Now, the set of tags we have *are* currently under review, for various
> good reasons; and it's entirely possible that some change will be decided
> on by the group - but until this happens, would it be possible for people
> to stick to the current system? - as unilateral usage of non-standard tags
> pretty much obviates the benefits of the tagging system.

I suppose ... although it looks more like we're in beta-testing phase for
-TAGS-. They're working pretty well, from what I can see.

And while we are in beta-testing phase, -TAG- and [TAG] in the subject
line should be sufficient for everybody's filter scripts, right?


...PeterH
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #294715 ] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 16:48
Brenda  
Gideon Hallett said:

> Tags and subject lines...
>
> (I'll try and keep this as brief as possible, honest.)
>
> Tags:
>
> I *think* I can say that the overall consensus in favour of /some/
> form of tagging.

Yes, you can certainly say it. Personally, I am utterly indifferent to them,
but you're probably right that the consensus is in favour of them.

> The effectiveness of any tagging system is dependent on people using
> it in such a way as to make filtering possible.

....which they don't, on the whole.

<snip>
>
> Subject lines.
>
> Brief and snappy is good. Brief, snappy and *relevant* is wonderful.

"Brief, snappy and relevant" subject lines render tags redundant.

<snip>

> As such, the current subject and possibly the previous one are all
> anyone really needs;

Yes, "brief, snappy and relevant" subject lines do indeed render tags
redundant.

<snip>


--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #294718 ] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:15
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
The time: 05 Jul 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid>

> Gideon Hallett said:
>
>> Tags and subject lines...
>>
>> (I'll try and keep this as brief as possible, honest.)
>>
>> Tags:
>>
>> I *think* I can say that the overall consensus in favour
>> of /some/ form of tagging.
>
> Yes, you can certainly say it. Personally, I am utterly
> indifferent to them, but you're probably right that the
> consensus is in favour of them.
>
>> The effectiveness of any tagging system is dependent on
>> people using it in such a way as to make filtering
>> possible.
>
> ...which they don't, on the whole.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Subject lines.
>>
>> Brief and snappy is good. Brief, snappy and *relevant* is
>> wonderful.
>
> "Brief, snappy and relevant" subject lines render tags
> redundant.

I don't entirely disagree, but I'm a belt-and-braces sort of
person, so I'm in favour of people attempting both correct
tags *and* snappy and relevent subject lines, in the hope
they'll achieve at least one of them...

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #294719 ] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:31
Peter Ellis  
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> "Brief, snappy and relevant" subject lines render tags redundant.

Not quite. As many people have pointed out in inexhaustible reams of
prose, the purpose of tags is to categorise the posts on the group, such
that people can prioritise which to download/read.

Back in the days when there was a significant amount of Usenet spam, then
there was a second purpose - the presence of a valid tag meant a message
was vanishingly unlikely to be spam. However, there's now so little spam
that I don't think this one applies any more

As such, the only important question is - what categories do people
actually want to divide their reading into?

I honestly don't think the R/I distinction is useful any more. It's been
in decline since the creation of abp. It may be useful to some, who want
to prioritise posts that talk about the books *and* who don't read abp,
but I suspect that's a small number of people. Besides, as Arthur
rightly points out, this is not by any means a binary choice, and threads
wander in and out of [R]elevance, or contain varying proportions of
[R]elevant material. [G] is likewise dead in the water.

[M] - kinda useful if you want to ignore navel-gazing meta-discusssion, or
conversely to seek it out and become an active participant in the hubbub
of group social dynamics. But again, it has so much overlap with [I] that
its use is limited, and the same problem of variable proportions arises.
The effort would be better spent on more informative subject lines.

[F] I would be very sad to lose though. One of the glories of afp has
been the vast amount of real-life interaction (meets, cons, marriages and
children) that have come about because of the existence of afp. The
tradition of meet reports (and even of meets) appears sadly to be falling
into abeyance, but I will *always* prioritise posts dealing with real-life
socialisation. I think that marking these subjects out with a tag helps
to reinforce the feeling of afp as something more than just an online
forum.

The one ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL tag IMO is [A]. Say what you like about the
relationship of lspace to afp - the APF is a labour of love, represents a
considerable amount of gleaned afp wisdom, and would be severely curtailed
by the loss of the [A] tag. I won't be able to support any system that
doesn't include a simple way of indicating posts as annotation discussion.

In summary: I don't see anything majorly *wrong* with the existing system,
but it may be time to stop trying to draw arbitrary boundaries between
R/I/M-type posts, especially given that any given post could well merit
all three tags. Also, given the prevalence of Google's tag-stripping, it
might be a good idea to stop trying to tag *every* post, and instead keep
them for "special occasions" - annotations and F-posts, possibly M as well
though I'm agnostic on that.

Peter
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #294768 ] Mi, 05 Juli 2006 22:48
matt  
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:25:31 +0100, Gideon Hallett wrote:

> Tags and subject lines...
<snip>
>
> While the use of various alternate forms of tagging was pretty much the
> point of the '*I* a test of the old {[TAGS]' thread, the alternate tags
> suggested there seem to have escaped to other threads, and they're being
> used in a fairly inconsistent and ad hoc fashion - which, frankly, does
> none of us any favours.

I've emailed Google Groups suggestions team/person/droid/blackhole
suggesting they only remove [TAG] occurrences in subjects if the tag
contains more than a single character. I have no idea if I'll get a
response, I have mixed feelings about the company (they went up after Vint
Cerf gave a talk at my University[1], but would someone like him read
the suggestions emails?).

> (I would personally argue against the habit of 'deactivating' tags
<snip -- trying to keep this short as I don't think another circular
discussion is wanted!>
Agree, hence why I like the idea of (M) (I) etc if tags have to be changed
(I'd much rather Google changed).

> [I] Foo (was bar was wibble was baz was quux) - should be Considered
> Harmful.

Quux!

--
Matt

[1] Nicely timed to be just after Google set up google.cn with it's
filtering.
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296688 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 11:44
Orjan Westin  
Peter Ellis wrote:
>
> As such, the only important question is - what categories do people
> actually want to divide their reading into?

Interesting stuff and the rest. Oh, you meant something that's
universal and not poster-specific?

> I honestly don't think the R/I distinction is useful any more. It's
> been in decline since the creation of abp. It may be useful to some,
> who want to prioritise posts that talk about the books *and* who
> don't read abp, but I suspect that's a small number of people.

It seems to me that there hasn't been much [R] threads about the books
for quite some time, no, but they're not that rare when it comes to
other pratchettania, like signing tours, controversial letters to The
Times, Hugo nominations, radio plays and so on.

More of a [P]ratchett thing, really.

> Besides, as Arthur rightly points out, this is not by any means a
> binary choice, and threads wander in and out of [R]elevance, or
> contain varying proportions of [R]elevant material. [G] is likewise
> dead in the water.

Agreed.

> [M] - kinda useful if you want to ignore navel-gazing
> meta-discusssion, or conversely to seek it out and become an active
> participant in the hubbub of group social dynamics. But again, it
> has so much overlap with [I] that its use is limited, and the same
> problem of variable proportions arises. The effort would be better
> spent on more informative subject lines.

I don't agree with the conclusion, even though I agree that better
subject lines would be nice. Once a [M] subthread has gone [I], it
rarely returns to [M]-dom, and personally I think that [M] deserves to
stay.

> [F] I would be very sad to lose though.

Emphatically agreed. At times I've been completely disinterested in
such threads, or very interested. Having been able to filter on that
tag has been very useful to me.

> The one ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL tag IMO is [A]. Say what you like about
> the relationship of lspace to afp - the APF is a labour of love,
> represents a considerable amount of gleaned afp wisdom, and would be
> severely curtailed by the loss of the [A] tag. I won't be able to
> support any system that doesn't include a simple way of indicating
> posts as annotation discussion.

Agreed.

> In summary: I don't see anything majorly *wrong* with the existing
> system, but it may be time to stop trying to draw arbitrary
> boundaries between R/I/M-type posts, especially given that any given
> post could well merit all three tags. Also, given the prevalence of
> Google's tag-stripping, it might be a good idea to stop trying to tag
> *every* post, and instead keep them for "special occasions" -
> annotations and F-posts, possibly M as well though I'm agnostic on
> that.

I broadly agree with you. The default post to afp is [I], and as such
it doesn't really merit a tag. Keeping them for special occasions makes
sense to me.

-F- -A- -M- should suffice, I think, and leaving all other posts
untagged would make things easier for all except returning oldies.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296694 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 12:06
elfin  
On 06/07/2006 10:44, Orjan Westin wrote:

> I broadly agree with you. The default post to afp is [I], and as
> such it doesn't really merit a tag. Keeping them for special
> occasions makes sense to me.

afp doesn't get much spam, at least from what I see. However some of
the oldbies have already pointed out that they filter everything that
isn't tagged. If the group suddenly became over run with spam, this
tag would be sorely missed.

> -F- -A- -M- should suffice, I think, and leaving all other posts
> untagged would make things easier for all except returning oldies.

I disagree with the reasonings for the removal of [R]. When a new book
comes out there are quite often [A] posts, but also prospective [R]
posts. Plus of course FARM is better than FAM.

Are FAQ's not going to be tagged as such if they are posted to the group?

Will the [ANNOUNCE] tag be useless then?

elfin
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296697 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 12:56
Orjan Westin  
elfin wrote:
> On 06/07/2006 10:44, Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>> I broadly agree with you. The default post to afp is [I], and as
>> such it doesn't really merit a tag. Keeping them for special
>> occasions makes sense to me.
>
> afp doesn't get much spam, at least from what I see. However some of
> the oldbies have already pointed out that they filter everything that
> isn't tagged.

Yes, but since the reason (spam) for that is no longer valid, I can't
see any reason why they can't change their filters.

> If the group suddenly became over run with spam, this
> tag would be sorely missed.

And if that happens, the tag can be re-introduced.

>> -F- -A- -M- should suffice, I think, and leaving all other posts
>> untagged would make things easier for all except returning oldies.
>
> I disagree with the reasonings for the removal of [R]. When a new book
> comes out there are quite often [A] posts, but also prospective [R]
> posts.

Yes, certainly. But usually, the subject line should give an indication
that it is [R], like the Greebo and turn direction threads we had a
while ago. But thread drift tends to carry such posts [I]-wards quite
quickly.

[R] is a tag I can take or leave. If it works, by all means let's keep
it. We won't know until next book is released.

> Are FAQ's not going to be tagged as such if they are posted to the
> group?
> Will the [ANNOUNCE] tag be useless then?

No, but those are not for general use, are they? [FAQ]s can, no ought
to be, tagged by whoever posts them, and announces by the afpa-mod. But
they're not meant for Joe Q. Poster.

FAM are also special posts, and I think it's worthwhile making them
stand out. The first and last of those are about the group as such,
off- and on-line, and the middle one is to help a service provider.

Whether R should be considered special enough to warrant a specific tag
is up for discussion, I feel.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296703 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 13:46
elfin  
On 06/07/2006 11:56, Orjan Westin wrote:
> elfin wrote:
>> On 06/07/2006 10:44, Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>>> I broadly agree with you. The default post to afp is [I], and
>>> as such it doesn't really merit a tag. Keeping them for
>>> special occasions makes sense to me.
>> afp doesn't get much spam, at least from what I see. However some
>> of the oldbies have already pointed out that they filter
>> everything that isn't tagged.
>
> Yes, but since the reason (spam) for that is no longer valid, I
> can't see any reason why they can't change their filters.
>
>> If the group suddenly became over run with spam, this tag would
>> be sorely missed.
>
> And if that happens, the tag can be re-introduced.

:grin: So we'll have an occasional tagging system then.



> [R] is a tag I can take or leave. If it works, by all means let's
> keep it. We won't know until next book is released.

I'd say it is far more important than an F tag, mind you we would then
have to RAM it down peoples throats. Plus in a FARM you have to be
careful where you tread.

>> Are FAQ's not going to be tagged as such if they are posted to
>> the group? Will the [ANNOUNCE] tag be useless then?
>
> No, but those are not for general use, are they? [FAQ]s can, no
> ought to be, tagged by whoever posts them, and announces by the
> afpa-mod. But they're not meant for Joe Q. Poster.

But the discussion is about Tags - and they are used and should not be
forgotten during the discussion, or the development, of any new
tagging system.

elfin
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296706 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 14:26
PeterH  
It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:44:00 +0100, when Orjan Westin
wrote:

> I broadly agree with you. The default post to afp is [I], and as such it
> doesn't really merit a tag. Keeping them for special occasions makes
> sense to me.

Well, *I* (or -I-, if you'd prefer...) would like the [I] - or rather, -I-
- tag to stay.

Firstly for the sake of consistency.

Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills include a
week's worth of placebos. It helps you to remember to use the things when
they're necessary.


...PeterH
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296743 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 18:00
Sanity  
Orjan Westin wrote:

> Whether R should be considered special enough to warrant a specific tag
> is up for discussion, I feel.

I can agree with the sentiment that the default post to afp is [I], and as
such doesn't need a tag. I disagree that [R] should disappear. Especially
when new books come out, or a movie is made[1], or whatever
Pratchett-relevant news there is, it is still needed and used. I am more
interested in [R] stuff, and while I don't care much for what some people
post [I], they can be very informative [R]-wise. So I'd really like to
keep the [R] tag alive and kicking.

[1] Hah!

--
TTFN, | AFPChess, Planet AFP, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
| Afpers' blogs: http://planetafp.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Discworld & Pratchett Wiki: http://wiki.lspace.org/
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296779 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 19:47
MEG  
"Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills include a
> week's worth of placebos.

They *do*???
Since when?

- MEG
Re: [I] Placebos (was A quick plea.) [message #296782 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 20:42
MEG  
"MEG" <nospam_MEG_news [at] djelibeybi.idps.co.uk> wrote WITHOUT CHANGING THE TAG
DAMMIT in message news:s4idnbTJlIlMxTDZRVnysg [at] bt.com...
> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills include a
>> week's worth of placebos.
>
> They *do*???
> Since when?

- MEG
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296879 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 09:25
PeterH  
It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:

> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills include a
>> week's worth of placebos.
>
> They *do*???
> Since when?

The ones you have to take every day have.


...PeterH
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296882 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 10:33
Stacie Hanes  
Peter Davies wrote:
> It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
>
>> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills
>>> include a week's worth of placebos.
>>
>> They *do*???
>> Since when?
>
> The ones you have to take every day have.

As placeholders, to maintain the ritual/habit of taking them, since
consistent timing can be important for effectiveness.
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296937 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 19:54
alec  
In article <W%org.4407$ye3.3598 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
house_damodred [at] yahoo.com says...
> Peter Davies wrote:
> > It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
> >>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills
> >>> include a week's worth of placebos.
> >>
> >> They *do*???
> >> Since when?
> >
> > The ones you have to take every day have.
>
> As placeholders, to maintain the ritual/habit of taking them, since
> consistent timing can be important for effectiveness.

An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody had ever
proved the need for a "week off", and the (male) discoverors had shoved
it in because the female body "ought" to have a week off. The article
suggested that there was no reason not to take it continuously, and
reduce the risk of occasionally forgetting.
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296941 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 20:26
Peter Ellis  
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Alec Cawley wrote:
>
> An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody had ever
> proved the need for a "week off", and the (male) discoverors had shoved
> it in because the female body "ought" to have a week off.

Broadly speaking right, but it's wrong to paint it as based on sexism or
ignorance. It stands to reason that preserving the normal rhythms as far
as possible gives you the least chance of introducing further side
effects. Imagine the furore if they'd recommended taking it continuously,
and it turned out the effects were irreversible after a couple of years.

>
> The article
> suggested that there was no reason not to take it continuously, and
> reduce the risk of occasionally forgetting.

Of course, long term hormonal treatments like the injection or implants
are now being used. The verdict on long-term health consequences is
necessarily still open. Nobody knows whether (say) spending 5 years
non-stop on Depo gives you an increased risk of osteoporosis 30 years down
the line - for a very simple reason.

Any public health measure is of necessity a giant experiment,
unfortunately. I don't think it's sexist to try and play it as safe as
possible given limited knowledge.

Peter
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296943 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 20:56
Kimberley Verburg  
Alec Cawley wrote:

> An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody had ever
> proved the need for a "week off", and the (male) discoverors had shoved
> it in because the female body "ought" to have a week off. The article
> suggested that there was no reason not to take it continuously, and
> reduce the risk of occasionally forgetting.

I've read it was because the inventors wanted to make the Pill look more
"natural" in an attempt to keep the Catholic Church happy. Anyone?

--
Kimberley Verburg
kim [at] lspace.org
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296946 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 21:45
Stacie Hanes  
Peter Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Alec Cawley wrote:
>>
>> An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody
>> had ever proved the need for a "week off", and the (male)
>> discoverors had shoved it in because the female body "ought" to
>> have a week off.
>
> Broadly speaking right, but it's wrong to paint it as based on
> sexism or ignorance. It stands to reason that preserving the
> normal rhythms as far as possible gives you the least chance of
> introducing further side effects. Imagine the furore if they'd
> recommended taking it continuously, and it turned out the effects
> were irreversible after a couple of years.

I've been reading for a couple of years now that some doctors believe that
the motnhly cycle is actually wearing on the body, and that taking the pills
to eliminate menstruation for months at a time, having it maybe quarterly,
might be of health benefit.

I'm not sure about that, but it's an attractive prospect.
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #296947 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 21:49
Michel  
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:56:10 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
<nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:

>Yes, certainly. But usually, the subject line should give an indication
>that it is [R], like the Greebo and turn direction threads we had a
>while ago. But thread drift tends to carry such posts [I]-wards quite
>quickly.

Sure, if a subject line is changed when it should be, a human reader
should be able to see from it whether a post is relevant or not, but
the whole point of tags is that you can make filters for it, and I've
yet to seea filter intelligent enough to decide from the text of a
topic whether it's *I* or *R*. Not everybody has the time to filter
manually.
--
Watashi wa neko desu nyo.
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296970 ] Fr, 07 Juli 2006 23:40
Diane L  
Anastasia wrote:

> I've been reading for a couple of years now that some doctors believe
> that the motnhly cycle is actually wearing on the body, and that
> taking the pills to eliminate menstruation for months at a time,
> having it maybe quarterly, might be of health benefit.

Certainly, I don't suffer from anaemia anymore. I also don't miss the
mood swings, the dizziness, the pain and the general feeling of being
really ill for one week out of four.

Diane L.
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #296977 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 01:01
alec  
In article <XRyrg.4449$PE1.64 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
house_damodred [at] yahoo.com says...
> Peter Ellis wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Alec Cawley wrote:
> >>
> >> An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody
> >> had ever proved the need for a "week off", and the (male)
> >> discoverors had shoved it in because the female body "ought" to
> >> have a week off.
> >
> > Broadly speaking right, but it's wrong to paint it as based on
> > sexism or ignorance. It stands to reason that preserving the
> > normal rhythms as far as possible gives you the least chance of
> > introducing further side effects. Imagine the furore if they'd
> > recommended taking it continuously, and it turned out the effects
> > were irreversible after a couple of years.
>
> I've been reading for a couple of years now that some doctors believe that
> the motnhly cycle is actually wearing on the body, and that taking the pills
> to eliminate menstruation for months at a time, having it maybe quarterly,
> might be of health benefit.
>
> I'm not sure about that, but it's an attractive prospect.

It has been alleged that pre-civilisation, when women would start having
sex as soon as they became sexually mature (if not before) and would
continue to do at all reasonable opportunities through their fertile
years, a "normal" woman would only menstruate a few times, perhaps a
dozen at most, in her life. By this theory, menstruation is not a normal
part of female biology but rather an error correction mechanism. "Failed
again this month - fix and try again". In which case it is hardly
surprising that mentruation has negative effects.
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #297006 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 03:34
Lesley Weston  
in article MPG.1f18b018345c434a989d4a [at] news.individual.net, Alec Cawley at
alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote on 07/07/2006 10:54 AM:

> In article <W%org.4407$ye3.3598 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> house_damodred [at] yahoo.com says...
>> Peter Davies wrote:
>>> It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>>>>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills
>>>>> include a week's worth of placebos.
>>>>
>>>> They *do*???
>>>> Since when?
>>>
>>> The ones you have to take every day have.
>>
>> As placeholders, to maintain the ritual/habit of taking them, since
>> consistent timing can be important for effectiveness.
>
> An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody had ever
> proved the need for a "week off", and the (male) discoverors had shoved
> it in because the female body "ought" to have a week off. The article
> suggested that there was no reason not to take it continuously, and
> reduce the risk of occasionally forgetting.

There's a big fuss about it right now, with the two sides not speaking to
each other and everything.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #297010 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 03:45
Julia Jones  
In article <MPG.1f18b018345c434a989d4a [at] news.individual.net>, Alec Cawley
<alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> writes
>In article <W%org.4407$ye3.3598 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>house_damodred [at] yahoo.com says...
>> Peter Davies wrote:
>> > It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>> >>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills
>> >>> include a week's worth of placebos.
>> >>
>> >> They *do*???
>> >> Since when?
>> >
>> > The ones you have to take every day have.
>>
>> As placeholders, to maintain the ritual/habit of taking them, since
>> consistent timing can be important for effectiveness.
>
>An article I read on the invention of The Pill said that nobody had ever
>proved the need for a "week off", and the (male) discoverors had shoved
>it in because the female body "ought" to have a week off. The article
>suggested that there was no reason not to take it continuously, and
>reduce the risk of occasionally forgetting.

And indeed that is the way some of us take it, when we are using it as
treatment for endometriosis rather than as contraception. Over my 25
years of unwanted experience, doctors have got more and more open about
the fact that there is no particular reason why women should have to
have the monthly period other than someone that that was the "natural'
way for women to be, and it would be jolly nice if someone actually did
the statistics and the article in the BMJ that would allow them to so
prescribe for everyone without risking getting sued. (I've heard this
rant from several doctors...)

Unfortunately this can lead to problems with one's medical insurance
company if one lives in the US, as they resent having to pay for
contraception anyway and have trouble wrapping their tiny minds around
the fact that there are reasons why some women need 33% more packets per
year.
--
Julia Jones
Spindrift -- EPPIE 2006 finalist, 5 stars from JERR
Richard finds the truth in legend, when he finds a silkie bereft of
his skin and in need of a home... http://www.loose-id.net/detail.aspx?ID=138
Re: [M] A quick plea. [message #297013 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 04:24
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Peter Ellis wrote:

> In summary: I don't see anything majorly *wrong* with the existing system, but
> it may be time to stop trying to draw arbitrary boundaries between R/I/M-type
> posts, especially given that any given post could well merit all three tags.

I have always maintained that one should be allowed to tag a post
simultanously Irrelevant and Relevant. But the syntax for multiple
tags should be standardised. Given the following two possibilities, I
would prefer to standardise on the former syntax.

-I- -R- Partially relevant topic

-I/R- Partially relevant topic

I don't, on the other hand, see any need to ever tag a post
simultaneously [I] and [M]. I don't think the same ambiguity arises as
it sometimes does between [I] and [R].

I agree with the other Peter that all posts should be tagged.

The question I feel should be formally decided in the near future are:

(a) Whether to change to -F- -R- -A- -I- -M- style tags.
(b) Whether to drop [C] and [G].
(c) Whether and how to indicate high-frivolity threads. Some people
have started using "S" for Silly. An alternative possibility
would be "-I- -FLUFF-".

BTW, if we adopt -X- as the tag format, then I will incline towards
using 'X' for deactivated tags, because a single quote (in Courier
font) looks like a dash turned sideways and shrunk. Individuals will
be free to indicate deactivated tags however they wish (just as both
{X} and (X) are used now), but single quotes will be my choice.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Birth control [message #297032 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 08:33
MEG  
"Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.07.07.25.50.254579 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
> It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
>
>> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills include a
>>> week's worth of placebos.
>>
>> They *do*???
>> Since when?
>
> The ones you have to take every day have.

Um, that was my point. Since when?
I used to take a contraceptive pill every day. After three weeks, they ran
out then I had to start the next strip a week later. So my question is
"since when have the strips contained the whole four weeks, one week of
which is placebos?"

- MEG
Re: [I] Birth control [message #297034 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 08:57
Stacie Hanes  
MEG wrote:
> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.07.07.07.25.50.254579 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>> It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>>>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills
>>>> include a week's worth of placebos.
>>>
>>> They *do*???
>>> Since when?
>>
>> The ones you have to take every day have.
>
> Um, that was my point. Since when?
> I used to take a contraceptive pill every day. After three weeks,
> they ran out then I had to start the next strip a week later. So my
> question is "since when have the strips contained the whole four
> weeks, one week of which is placebos?"


So is the actual question "when was an everyday-no-interruptions pill
developed?"

Well, it's late and this is a drive-by, but one called trilevlin is that
sort. It's a starting point.
Re: [I] Birth control [message #297037 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 10:53
MEG  
"Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XHIrg.4849$ye3.2627 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> MEG wrote:
>> Um, that was my point. Since when?
>> I used to take a contraceptive pill every day. After three weeks,
>> they ran out then I had to start the next strip a week later. So my
>> question is "since when have the strips contained the whole four
>> weeks, one week of which is placebos?"
>
>
> So is the actual question "when was an everyday-no-interruptions pill
> developed?"

No. To my thinking, that implies that every day is the same i.e. no
interruptions in taking the medication.

> Well, it's late and this is a drive-by, but one called trilevlin is that
> sort. It's a starting point.

It's okay, it was only a question of curiosity in response to a previous
message. It's really not important and, if it were and I'd got no answers, I
would invoke Google-fu. Thanks anyway.

- MEG
Re: [I] A quick plea. [message #297049 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 12:55
sphira9343  
Peter Ellis wrote:

> The
> tradition of meet reports (and even of meets) appears sadly to be falling
> into abeyance, but I will *always* prioritise posts dealing with real-life
> socialisation. I think that marking these subjects out with a tag helps
> to reinforce the feeling of afp as something more than just an online
> forum.

I'd agree with you there on most counts. With regard to meets, though,
I don't think it's so much a case of them getting fewer, but more a
case of a change in the way they're being organised. So many meets are
now being organised on a closed post in someone's Livejournal, for
instance, or on #afp, which not all of us use. I can think of one
particular time this year when two meets happened within days of each
other, the attendees mentioned them in their blogs, and got a number of
replies along the lines of "There was a meet? Bugger, I'd have gone to
that one if I'd known about it."

This isn't a complaint as such, or an inference that all meets should
be organised through the traditional 'annouce a month ahead on afpa'
format (which would be restricting). It's more an explanation of why a
lot of us who enjoy meets sometimes don't get to them.

CCA, not wearing the grumpy bugger hat, honestly :-)
Re: -I- Birth control // was {M} A quick plea. [message #297050 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 12:59
sphira9343  
Anastasia wrote:

> I've been reading for a couple of years now that some doctors believe that
> the motnhly cycle is actually wearing on the body, and that taking the pills
> to eliminate menstruation for months at a time, having it maybe quarterly,
> might be of health benefit.
>
> I'm not sure about that, but it's an attractive prospect.

Unless you have a history of DVT, or are from a family who has a
history of it.

This is not me saying "the pill is bound to cause DVT", more a
statement of why I'd be cautious about taking it unless I needed to.

CCA
Re: [I] A quick plea. [message #297058 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 13:31
Peter Ellis  
CCA wrote:
>
> I'd agree with you there on most counts. With regard to meets, though,
> I don't think it's so much a case of them getting fewer, but more a
> case of a change in the way they're being organised. So many meets
> are now being organised on a closed post in someone's Livejournal, for
> instance, or on #afp, which not all of us use.

Then they're not a.f.p meets, simple as that. On the other hand - a lot of
my friends are afpers and ex-afpers. If I want to organise a gathering or
party, I'm under no obligation to make it an afp meet, (announce it, report
it etc), even if 99% of those present are afpers.

Peter
Re: [I] A quick plea. [message #297062 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 13:53
sphira9343  
Peter Ellis wrote:
> CCA wrote:

> > I'd agree with you there on most counts. With regard to meets, though,
> > I don't think it's so much a case of them getting fewer, but more a
> > case of a change in the way they're being organised. So many meets
> > are now being organised on a closed post in someone's Livejournal, for
> > instance, or on #afp, which not all of us use.

> Then they're not a.f.p meets, simple as that. On the other hand - a lot of
> my friends are afpers and ex-afpers. If I want to organise a gathering or
> party, I'm under no obligation to make it an afp meet, (announce it, report
> it etc), even if 99% of those present are afpers.

Very true, and I've been to many like that. After all, if you put a
large group of people in the same place (or collection of places)
online, there are bound to be friendship groups springing up sooner or
later. But what I'm talking about is when a get-together or whatever
is organised two days or so before it happens, on (for instance)
someone's blog, and *then* presented as "I went to a meet" afterwards.


Anyway, I'm going to stop this line of discussion here as I can see it
blowing up into yet another row, and we don't need that.

[General group question]
On a not entirely different subject, what are people's thoughts on
quotefiles? I've noticed those disappearing a lot over the last few
years, so much so that I was unsure whether or not to do one for last
year's CCDE. I don't know if people have objected in the past to
seeing their unguarded words in print, or something like that.

CCA
Re: [I] Birth control [message #297085 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 18:03
Julia Jones  
In article <Bb6dnazOJOUkzDLZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d [at] bt.com>, MEG
<nospam_MEG_news [at] djelibeybi.idps.co.uk> writes
>"Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.07.07.07.25.50.254579 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>> It all started on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:48 +0100, when MEG wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.07.06.12.26.56.191428 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>>>> Secondly for the same reason that packs of birth-control pills include a
>>>> week's worth of placebos.
>>>
>>> They *do*???
>>> Since when?
>>
>> The ones you have to take every day have.
>
>Um, that was my point. Since when?
>I used to take a contraceptive pill every day. After three weeks, they ran
>out then I had to start the next strip a week later. So my question is
>"since when have the strips contained the whole four weeks, one week of
>which is placebos?"

It depends on the brand. Some have the placebos, some don't - and some
used not to and now do. My understanding is that more and more of them
have gone over to the placebos because on average they do improve the
likelihood of people remembering to start the next packet on time.

If you have to take an active pill every day anyway, the placebos are
just a nuisance, especially in packaging where the calendar label
assumes that you will start a new packet in the middle of the placebo
week.
--
Julia Jones
Re: [I] A quick plea. [message #297090 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 19:26
Kincaid  
In article <1152359622.163303.282320 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
CCA <sphira9343 [at] aol.com> wrote:
> [General group question] On a not entirely different subject, what are
> people's thoughts on quotefiles? I've noticed those disappearing a lot
> over the last few years, so much so that I was unsure whether or not to
> do one for last year's CCDE. I don't know if people have objected in
> the past to seeing their unguarded words in print, or something like
> that.

Too much of saying stuff solely for the quote file. So they got dull,
obvious, and trite.
Re: [I] A quick plea. [message #297107 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 19:15
aqusenet  
CCA <sphira9343 [at] aol.com> wrote:


> [General group question]
> On a not entirely different subject, what are people's thoughts on
> quotefiles? I've noticed those disappearing a lot over the last few
> years, so much so that I was unsure whether or not to do one for last
> year's CCDE. I don't know if people have objected in the past to
> seeing their unguarded words in print, or something like that.

On the one hand, I run http://quotes.aqxs.net,
on the other, I find a list of people whose unguarded words are being
taken out of context to be innuendo to be a joke that has had its arse
ripped out, stuffed and mounted on a wall for all to look at it, point,
and say "For there is a joke that had its arse ripped out by constant
overuse, and there it lives beside the crocodile, the temple and All
Your Base."

But, you know, go ahead.

--
'q
[M] Quote Files (was: A quick plea) [message #297110 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 20:42
Kimberley Verburg  
CCA wrote:

> [General group question]
> On a not entirely different subject, what are people's thoughts on
> quotefiles? I've noticed those disappearing a lot over the last few
> years, so much so that I was unsure whether or not to do one for last
> year's CCDE. I don't know if people have objected in the past to
> seeing their unguarded words in print, or something like that.

I don't recall anyone objecting to being quoted. I haven't written a
meet report in ages but I stopped doing quotes because they'd kind of
had their day. But the biggest reason for stopping was that I had to pay
attention and take time to record the quotes, which doesn't happen if
you're too busy nattering.

I see no reason why the concept shouldn't be dusted off again, I always
liked a good quote file.

--
Kimberley Verburg
kim [at] lspace.org
Re: -I- A quick plea. [message #297131 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 22:45
sphira9343  
Aquarion wrote:

> On the one hand, I run http://quotes.aqxs.net,
> on the other, I find a list of people whose unguarded words are being
> taken out of context to be innuendo to be a joke that has had its arse
> ripped out, stuffed and mounted on a wall for all to look at it, point,
> and say "For there is a joke that had its arse ripped out by constant
> overuse, and there it lives beside the crocodile, the temple and All
> Your Base."

Good points. But on the other hand, if it was just a record of funny
things people said, and nothing to do with innuendo, what then? The
reason I ask is that some of my favourite CCDE/Con quotes have been to
do with the T&J band, the use of beer as a cure for sunburn, and the
usefulness of wearing one's Councillors robes in order to get a free
ride on the dodgems at the local fair. No innuendo contained.

CCA
Re: [I] A quick plea. [message #297157 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 02:02
Peter Ellis  
CCA wrote:
>
> Very true, and I've been to many like that. After all, if you put a
> large group of people in the same place (or collection of places)
> online, there are bound to be friendship groups springing up sooner or
> later. But what I'm talking about is when a get-together or whatever
> is organised two days or so before it happens, on (for instance)
> someone's blog, and *then* presented as "I went to a meet" afterwards.

Then the presenters should in all probability be re-educated. If one of my
friends wrote up a meet report for afp from one of our gatherings, I'd find
it more than a trifle odd. Might depend on the gathering. To take a random
example, I'm awfully glad nobody wrote an afpmeet report for my wedding,
since it wasn't one, despite containing a scarily high numbers of
afpers-in-suits.

Peter
Vorheriges Thema:[ANNOUNCE][R] Terry at MidSouthCon 25
Nächstes Thema:[M].Quoting private emails
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:11:40 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,58588 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered