No Subject

[cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk]

Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Path: welsh
From: welsh@newshost.dcs (E.Welsh)
Subject: Re: Don't Subquote, Dammit
In-Reply-To: Fiona_McQuarrie@sfu.ca's message of 16 Nov 92 01:38:08 GMT
Message-ID: <WELSH.92Nov17141906@aquamarine.newshost.dcs>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: /home/welsh/.organization
References: <9211160137.AA23234@whistler.sfu.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:19:06 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <9211160137.AA23234@whistler.sfu.ca>, Fiona_McQuarrie@sfu.ca writes:
> WHEN YOU ARE RESPONDING TO PREVIOUS MESSAGES, PLEASE BE BRIEF IF YOU ARE
> QUOTING FROM THEM!!!!

Agreed!

> this and here's what I think". A simple line at the beginning of the new
> posting along the lines of "Re: 10,000 Maniacs records" would be quite
> sufficient. 

I disagree. That isn't enough information to remind me what the original
question was. I don't want to have to make an effort to remember or try and
find the original post.

> What's even more annoying is when three or four messages sub-sub-sub-quote
> the same material so not only do you have to try to figure it out, you have
> to read it over three or four times!

No. You start at the lowest level of indentation and work your way up until
you realise what the post is about. You don't read it unless you need to.

> So get with it, people. Don't be jerks. Be considerate of other readers
> (especially those using 1200-baud modems or limited memory capacity) and
> keep the repeating to a minimum.

Yes. Keep it to a minimum, but make sure you leave enough information for
people to understand the context. Posts that consist of "I agree with what
so-and-so said about such-and-such" are next to useless. You have to quote!
--

 _____________________________________________________________________
/ Evan Welsh                                          <evan@ed.ac.uk> \
\ Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre               (+44 31 650 5960) /