From: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org (mad-mission-digest) To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Subject: mad-mission-digest V11 #98 Reply-To: mad-mission@smoe.org Sender: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * mad-mission-digest-request@smoe.org * with ONLY the word unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * For the latest information on Patty's tour dates, go to: * http://www.pattygriffin.net/PattyInConcertDB.php * OR * go to http://www.atorecords.com * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: mad-mission-digest V8 #___ gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. * Also, PLEASE do not quote an entire digest when you reply to the * list. Edit out anything you are not referring to. mad-mission-digest Saturday, March 31 2007 Volume 11 : Number 098 Today's Subjects: ----------------- MM: Re: Re: Patty #14 in WYEP's Top 50 Women in Music ["rockerpgh _" Subject: MM: Re: Re: Patty #14 in WYEP's Top 50 Women in Music Sarah's "Fumbling Toward Ecstasy" is quite a CD. ----- Original Message ----- From: hugues To: mad-mission@smoe.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:09 PM Subject: MM: Re: Patty #14 in WYEP's Top 50 Women in Music Well, that list doesn't seem to forget much, the more so as honorable mentions include Amy Rigby and Jill Sobule (but they forget Jenifer Jackson - hahaaa!) Surprising to see Bonnie Raitt, Madonna and Sarah McLachlan so high in the list (in my musical opinion) Cheers Hugues ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Antall" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: MM: Patty #14 in WYEP's Top 50 Women in Music > This is from Pittsburgh's WYEP. Interesting who did NOT make the list! > > http://wyep.org/music_programs/topwomen.asp?source=enews > > > WYEP's Top 50 Women in Music as voted by our listeners > > 1 Joni Mitchell > 2 Aretha Franklin > 3 Bonnie Raitt > 4 Janis Joplin > 5 Billie Holiday > 6 Carole King > 7 Emmylou Harris > 8 Lucinda Williams > 9 Patti Smith > 10 Tori Amos > 11 Ani Difranco > 12 Madonna > 13 Ella Fitzgerald > > **** 14 Patty Griffin > > 15 Sarah McLachlan > 16 Chrissie Hynde > 17 Joan Baez > 18 Indigo Girls > 19 Patsy Cline > 20 Annie Lennox > 21 Allison Krauss > 22 Stevie Nicks > 23 Nina Simone > 24Sheryl Crow > 25 Dar Williams > 26 Melissa Etheridge > 27 Bjork > 28 Linda Ronstadt > 29 Fiona Apple > 30 Aimee Mann > 31 Norah Jones > 32 Etta James > 33 Laura Nyro > 34 Deborah Harry > 35 Tracy Chapman > 36 Natalie Merchant > 37 Kate Bush > 38 Susan Tedeschi > 39 Sinead O'Connor > 40 Dolly Parton > 41 Carly Simon > 42 Janis Ian > 43 Neko Case > 44 Loretta Lynn > 45 PJ Harvey > 46 KD Lang > 47 Gillian Welch > 48 Ricki Lee Jones > 49 Liz Phair > 50 Beth Orton > > Here's a listing of some "honorable mention" Women in Music that got a > good > amount of votes... > Alanis Morissette > Alice Coltrane > Alison Moyet > Amy Rigby > Angelique Kidjo > Anita O'Day > Anne Murray > Astrud Gilberto > Avril Lavigne > Barbra Streisand > Bebel Gilberto > Bernice Johnson > Regan Bessie Smith > Bette Midler > Betty Carter > Betty LeVette > Beverly Sills > Big Mama Thornton > Blossom Dearie > Carla Bley > "Mama" Cass Eliot > Cassandra Wilson > Catie Curtis > Celia Cruz > Chaka Khan > Chan Marshall > Cher > Christina Aguleira > Christine Lavin > Christine McVie > Cindy Walker > Clara Schuman > Courtney Love > Cyndi Lauper > Darlene Love > Diamanda Galas > Diana Krall > Diana Ross > Diane Schurr > Dido > Dinah Washington > Dionne Warwick > Dixie Chicks > Dolores O'Riordan > Dory Previn > Dusty Springfield > Eartha Kitt > Edie Brickell > Edith Piaf > Erykah Badu > Etta Cox > Exene Cervenka > Feist > Ferron > Gladys Knight > Grace Jones > Grace Slick > Harriet Wheeler > Heart > Helen Reddy > Hildegard of Bingen > Holly Near > Iris Dement > Jane Siberry > Jane Wiedlin > Janet Jackson > Jean Ritchie > Jewel Jill Scott > Jill Sobule > Jill West > Joan Armatrading > Joan Jett > Joan Osbourne > Johnette Napolitano > Jonatha Brooke > Joss Stone > Judy Collins > Judy Garland > Juliana Hatfield > Julie Andrews > Julie Miller > June Carter Cash > Kaki King > Karen Carpenter > Karen O. > Karen Peris > Kasey Chambers > Kate Pierson > Kate Rusby > Kate & Anna McGarrigle > Kathleen Edwards > Kathleen Hannah > Kim Deal > Kim Gordon > Kim Richey > Kirsty MacColl > Koko Taylor > Kris Delmhorst > Kristen Hersh > KT Tunstall > Kylie Minogue > Laura Veirs > Laurie Anderson > Lauryn Hill > LeAnn Rimes > Lila Downs > Lisa Gerrard > Loreena Mckennitt > Lou Ann Barton > Macy Gray > Maddy Prior > Madeleine Peyroux > Mahalia Jackson > Maia Sharp > Marcia Ball > Margo Timmons > Maria Callas > Marian Anderson > Marian McPartland > Marianne Faithfull > Martha Wainwright > Mary Chapin Carpenter > Mary Gauthier > Mary J. Blige > Mary Travers > Maureen "Moe" Tucker > Mavis Staples > Maybelle Carter > Meg White > Melissa Ferrick > Melissa Manchester > Memphis Minnie > Me'Shell Ndegeocello > Michelle Malone > Michelle Shocked > Miriam Makeba > Nanci Griffith > Nancy Sinatra > Nancy Wilson > Nellie McKay > Nico > Odetta > Olivia Newton-John > Pat Benetar > Patti LaBelle > Patty Larkin > Paula Cole > Peaches > Peggy Lee > Penelope Houston > Phoebe Snow > Pink > Poe > Queen Latifah > Petula Clark > Regina Spektor > Roberta Flack > Ronnie Gilbert > Ronnie Spector > Ronnettes > Rory Block > Rosanne Cash > Ruth Brown > Sade > Sam Phillips > Sandy Denny > Sarah Harmer > Sarah Vaughn > Shania Twain > Shannon Mcnally > Sharleen Spiteri > Shawn Colvin > Shelby Lynne > Shemekia Copeland > Shirley Jones > Shirley Manson > Siouxsie Sioux > Sippie Wallace > Sister Rosetta Tharpe > Skye Edwards > Sleater-Kinney > Sue Foley > Supremes > Suzanne Vega > Sweet Honey in the Rock > Tammy Wynette > Tania Maria > Tegan and Sara > The Bangles > The Go-Go's > Tina Turner > Toshi Reagon > Tracey Thorn > Victoria Williams > Wailin' Jennys > Wanda Jackson > Wendy Carlos > Wendy O. Williams > Wynnona Judd > Yoko Ono > > Scott Antall > http://www.scottantall.com/ > scott@scottantall.com > Phone: 440/623-3738 > Fax: 440/236-3346 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:24:50 -0400 From: Mike Connell Subject: MM: All PLEASE read, from the MM list owner As manager/owner of this list I sadly feel have to take the long overdue time to yell at the list again. Much of this post to the list is cut and pasted text from a post I made on this list March 16, 2003. I've also made it a number of times since, and from reading it below you will see I made it a number of times before March 2003. Sadly, some things never change. This list is THE worst I've EVER encountered and/or run in the terms of proper netiquette in regards to replying with quoted text. There isn't even a close second. Many of you folks here do not even know the concept of editing a quoted reply to the list. For example, a post to the list this morning had ONE line of new text and 10K of quoted text, AGAIN the entire Top 50 Women In Music listing and the listing of honorable mentions. Digests are posted daily or when the list email accumulates to 18K since the last digest. This ONE post of ONE line of new text ate up over half that threshold. My post from March 2003: I've mentioned this many times here and some people just do not get it (and by the way, this is NOT just me saying this, it's a common topic in any netiquette guideline). When you reply onlist to a post and quote the other post you are replying to, PLEASE only keep in what text *you need to support your point* and delete out the other quoted text. This is one of the worst lists I've ever seen with this particular "netiquette" violation and it borders on the ridiculous some days. It's bad enough wading through a post that contains a few new sentences and 500 words of quoted text, but when that same quoted text gets re-posted again and again it really gets annoying and it's even MUCH harder to deal with in the digest version of this list, not to mention that it wastes much hard-drive space in the smoe archives. Also, keep this in mind, quoting text "properly" makes YOUR post more likely to be read in it's entirety once opened and/or when come upon in the digest version. For those that do not know, the digest version of this list is one large email that contains on average the previous 20 or so posts to the list. However, when a large post is re-quoted a number of times, that digest contains only 4 or 5 posts, a vast majority of it repeated/quoted text. (see the link below for a "great" example of this) Updated for March 2007: To see a sample digest and how the excessive quoting makes list email and the digests much more annoying to wade through, you can see one of Fridays' archived digests at http://www.smoe.org/lists/mad-mission/v11.n096 Notice how the original "top 50 women" post is quoted entirely a number of times in the digest. Some of you making these posts have been on the list for years and have been here when I made similar pleas to the list to learn how to quote properly. I think it's time you take the presence of mind and start following the netiquette advice I have presented. numerous times before. Mike Mad-Mission list "owner" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:18:43 +0200 From: "hugues" Subject: MM: Re: All PLEASE read, from the MM list owner and see, I have forgot again to delete the quote! I'm afraid it can't stop to happen, there's simply a trouble for both versions at once. Hugues ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:17:00 +0200 From: "hugues" Subject: MM: Re: All PLEASE read, from the MM list owner I'm sorry, I didn't think of the digest-version. But think of the non-digest subscribers, too: they have to look for the previous email to see the list to which some answers were posted (that's why I kept the list in the quote, it was useful for the non-digest posters, just to keep an eye on it)... Another thing I find curious on this list, is that we have to select the "answer to everyone", otherwise it only goes to the original poster. And to boot, I have to delete the original poster of my "answer to everyone" as to not sending it him twice. And I've never complained about that, so I'm not sure I have the worst attitude here. Hugues - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Connell" To: Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:24 PM Subject: MM: All PLEASE read, from the MM list owner > As manager/owner of this list I sadly feel have to take the long overdue > time to yell at the list again. > > Much of this post to the list is cut and pasted text from a post I made > on this list March 16, 2003. I've also made it a number of times since, > and from reading it below you will see I made it a number of times before > March 2003. > > Sadly, some things never change. > > This list is THE worst I've EVER encountered and/or run in the terms of > proper netiquette in regards to replying with quoted text. There isn't > even a close second. Many of you folks here do not even know the concept > of editing a quoted reply to the list. For example, a post to the list > this morning had ONE line of new text and 10K of quoted text, AGAIN the > entire Top 50 Women In Music listing and the listing of honorable > mentions. Digests are posted daily or when the list email accumulates to > 18K since the last digest. This ONE post of ONE line of new text ate up > over half that threshold. > > My post from March 2003: > I've mentioned this many times here and some people just do not get it > (and by the way, this is NOT just me saying this, it's a common topic in > any netiquette guideline). > > When you reply onlist to a post and quote the other post you are replying > to, PLEASE only keep in what text *you need to support your point* and > delete out the other quoted text. This is one of the worst lists I've ever > seen with this particular "netiquette" violation and it borders on the > ridiculous some days. It's bad enough wading through a post that contains > a few new sentences and 500 words of quoted text, but when that same > quoted text gets re-posted again and again it really gets annoying and > it's even MUCH harder to deal with in the digest version of this list, not > to mention that it wastes much hard-drive space in the smoe archives. > > Also, keep this in mind, quoting text "properly" makes YOUR post more > likely to be read in it's entirety once opened and/or when come upon in > the digest version. For those that do not know, the digest version of this > list is one large email that contains on average the previous 20 or so > posts to the list. However, when a large post is re-quoted a number of > times, that digest contains only 4 or 5 posts, a vast majority of it > repeated/quoted text. (see the link below for a "great" example of this) > > Updated for March 2007: > To see a sample digest and how the excessive quoting makes list email and > the digests much more annoying to wade through, you can see one of > Fridays' archived digests at > http://www.smoe.org/lists/mad-mission/v11.n096 > > Notice how the original "top 50 women" post is quoted entirely a number of > times in the digest. > > Some of you making these posts have been on the list for years and have > been here when I made similar pleas to the list to learn how to quote > properly. I think it's time you take the presence of mind and start > following the netiquette advice I have presented. numerous times before. > > Mike > Mad-Mission list "owner" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:08:23 -0400 From: Mike Connell Subject: MM: NPC - Re: All PLEASE read, from the MM list owner Note: Normally this would be a private reply, but it touches upon some other list maintenance/settings issues that others here may wonder about. "hugues" said: > I'm sorry, I didn't think of the digest-version. But think of the > non-digest >sub-scribers, too: they have to look for the previous email to see the list >to which some answers were posted (that's why I kept the list in the quote, >it was useful for the non-digest posters, just to keep an eye on it)... It's not just the digest people. Hence my part where I said keep in what is necessary to support your point and edit out the rest. That said, I know what you are saying as to "keep an eye on it" in the case of the long list, but I doubt many would read that entire list again and if they wanted to they could dig up the original post...but again, I DO see your reasoning. It's just unfortunate that the list wa so long (and by the way, I am NOT saying the list should not have been posted in the first place. Far from it. Lists like that DO belong here. Plus, my post was not just picking on this most recent case. I have been wanting to make this post for weeks because the problem has been going on for a long time and I just hadn't addressed it again. As a matter of fact, I Do believe someone else made a simliar onlist post a month or so ago) >Another thing I find curious on this list, is that we have to select the >"answer to everyone", otherwise it only goes to the original poster. And to >boot, I have to delete the original poster of my "answer to everyone" as to >not sending it him twice. I know what you are saying and understand the question from your side (and the question is nothing new). There are simple reasons why that is set that way (which by the way is the default setting for all lists hosted at smoe.org). If you do want to reply only to the person who made the post, you hit reply. To reply to the list and the poster, hit replay-all. As to your point of sending him/her the post twice, yes it is an ill side-effect for those on the regular list but if the person whose post you are replying to is on digest they won't get it until the next digest is published and I am certain that a vast majority of digest subscribers do not mind and probably prefer individual replies to THEIR list post . By the way, about 40% of the people here are on digest. The alternative is if I did have it set to "reply to: mad-mission@smoe.org" then in order to send a private reply, you would then have to copy and paste their email address into the To field and then delete the mad-mission@smoe.org from it. The default and preferred here at smoe is set the way it is to mimimze the number of posts that were meant to be private from being sent to the list. (we have no way of knowing how many private replies are sent, but I do know that I send out a few private replies a week to MM people and also receive some too....such as I got five private replies today already). Basically, it's all a matter of convenience to the majority as long as that convenience does not have an ill-effect on the resources of smoe.org. The excessive over-quoting and repeating of such does effect the resources of smoe.org in a few ways very few see. Mike ------------------------------ End of mad-mission-digest V11 #98 *********************************