<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [LINGANTH] Attachments, anyone?--no thanks!</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I agree with Scott, Valentina, et al. in thinking that the drawbacks of attachments outweigh their benefits. They fill up my inbox, and I'm unlikely to read them in any event.<BR>
<BR>
I'm not opposed to HTML messages, but wouldn't insist on allowing them either.<BR>
<BR>
Rudi<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Rudolf P. Gaudio<BR>
Associate Professor of Anthropology<BR>
Purchase College, State University of New York<BR>
Purchase, New York 10577<BR>
rudolf.gaudio@purchase.edu<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group on behalf of Scott F. Kiesling<BR>
Sent: Fri 7/4/2008 5:09 PM<BR>
To: LINGANTH@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<BR>
Subject: Re: [LINGANTH] Attachments, anyone?--no thanks!<BR>
<BR>
I agree. Email should be text, especially lists. Besides, when people<BR>
send me a CFP (or something) as an attachment, I'm less likely to read<BR>
it than if it is in either the msg. body or a web link (which I<BR>
actually find easier to access than attachments).<BR>
<BR>
And some of us use plain text email readers, and ignore html messages.<BR>
<BR>
SFK<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:42AM +0100, Alexander King wrote:<BR>
> > From: Alexander King <a.king@ABDN.AC.UK><BR>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:23:42 +0100<BR>
> > To: LINGANTH@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<BR>
> > Subject: Re: [LINGANTH] Attachments, anyone?--no thanks!<BR>
<BR>
> > I completely agree with Claire. HTML email is fluff--just cosmetics that<BR>
> > gets in the way. Attachments aren't necessary because you can post a PDF<BR>
> > on the web--everyone has a website, right? And circulate a URL. Most<BR>
> > attachments ARE NOT necessary anyway. They tend to be clumsy word docs<BR>
> > that could have been ASCII email anyway.<BR>
<BR>
> > I vote no attachments.<BR>
<BR>
> > Alex<BR>
<BR>
> > On 3 Jul 2008, at 6:18, Claire Bowern wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> >> I strongly disagree. It's a great way to spread viruses. Remember also<BR>
> >> that this is not just a US-based list and in parts of the world where<BR>
> >> you have to pay per mb for download html posting and large attachments<BR>
> >> clog up inboxes. There's no reason why posters can't send round a link<BR>
> >> to a web page.<BR>
> >> Claire<BR>
<BR>
> >> 2008/7/3 Ronald Kephart <rkephart@unf.edu>:<BR>
> >> On 7/2/08 2:47 PM, "Susan Seizer" <sseizer@INDIANA.EDU> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> >> I vote to allow attachments and HTML postings at this point. It <BR>
> >> facilitates circulatation of ideas re: phenomena in the public sphere<BR>
> >> about which we may be thinking.<BR>
<BR>
> >> I agree, especially the attachments. Sometimes that's the easiest way<BR>
> >> to share things with IPA.<BR>
<BR>
> >> Ron<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> > - tel:+44(1224)27 2732, fax:+44(1224)27 2552 - <A HREF="http://www.koryaks.net">http://www.koryaks.net</A> -<BR>
> > <A HREF="http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology">http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology</A><BR>
--<BR>
Scott F. Kiesling, PhD<BR>
<BR>
Associate Professor<BR>
Department Chair<BR>
<BR>
Department of Linguistics<BR>
University of Pittsburgh, 2816 CL<BR>
Pittsburgh, PA 15260<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu">http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu</A><BR>
Office: +1 412-624-5916<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>