Re: Re WIT

John C. Mallery <>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 22:33:01 +0200
Message-id: <19940611203130.4.JCMA@JEFFERSON.AI.MIT.EDU>
Precedence: bulk
From: John C. Mallery <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Re WIT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
    Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:55 EDT
    From: "Jon P. Knight" <>

    On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
    > 2) Seal of Approvals - instead of being able to merely "agree" and
    > "disagree", users can apply "approvals" and "disapprovals" to
    > any post they read.  No comment to be left, just a general sign of
    > support or an indication by the reader that this is a Good post.

    But what happens if a posting contains some points I agree with and some
    that I disagree with.  This is the most common form of posting in both
    mailing lists and on the USENET as far as I'm concerned.  Do I just cut
    out each point separately and attach an ``agree'', ``disagree'' or
    ``ambivalent'' SOAP to them?  Or am I forced to make an overall judgement
    of the posting as a whole?  Or split it up into sub-topics, even if they
    haven't deviated greatly from the main topic?

Clearly, the most desirable solution is to mark the relevant region (in
whatever way the clinet allows)) and attach the link to the relevant text.

Although more difficult to implement properly on both the front and back ends,
it does what most people want.

Additionally, it tends to focus on the relevant text, zeroing in on what is
important, or a least salient.