Re: date with timestamps in chat windows

>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:46:40 -0700
>From: Nik <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>
>Well, this is "Instant Messaging" we're dealing with. There's various
>excellent systems for less instantaneous messaging, the most common of
>which is e-mail. :)

Hmmm, yes, it is a little odd to use ICQ for a conversation that can 
be suspended for days -- sounds more like postal chess than instant 
messaging.  I realize you weren't being critical, but it did get me 
thinking about my conversational mode and I found some things worth 
pointing out:

The conversation >is< instant if the other person is there: for 
instance, "You there?  I just spoke to Bud and he has some 
suggestions I'd like to discuss."  This may get a more instant 
response than email.
It's a >conversation< -- email does not format conversations 
appropriately, nesting each response an additional level, making the 
whole thing unreadable.
I can get a log of the whole conversation from Fire (separated from 
an other conversations I may be conducting).
My buddy can send me a message even if I'm not connected (in 
particular, when Fire isn't running).  The message shows up the next 
time I connect.
If my buddy doesn't get a sufficiently rapid response he can always 
send me email if he chooses.

I rarely use instant messaging. (I suppose that's why when I do I use 
it oddly.)  But my buddy's insistence on ICQ for conversation has led 
me to discover this intermediate level of messaging between "instant" 
and "email".  (A telegram instead of a phone call or letter?  Did 
rich people ever play telegram chess?)  It might be interesting to 
catalog the "forms of conversation (dialog, multilog, etc.)" people 
use "instant messaging" facilities for -- bet it would be a long list!