FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA (02/06/85)
You people are the worst offenders this month! That is, before you say anything new, you repeat everything that has gone before, using several fractur brackets (>>>) to distinguish successive posts. Just to say that I can usually remember the last 2 or 3 days' messages, and would prefer NOT to see them repeated ad nauseam before your rebuttals. -------
Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA> (02/06/85)
Most people seem to like it the other way. As a demo, I am doing this one your way. See what happens.
sde@Mitre-Bedford (02/07/85)
I vote for the short way, or at most excerpting core passages. David sde@mitre-bedford
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/07/85)
> Most people seem to like it the other way. > As a demo, I am doing this one your way. > See what happens. What was this all about? -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA (02/07/85)
/* i have to agree with doug gwyn on this one. unfortunately many msgs arrive out of sequence, and i read the rebuttal before the statement. you are correct in that we dont have to include the entire msg tho. */
MLY.G.SHADES%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (02/08/85)
i have to agree with jsdy here, in regards to a line or two of
the message being reffered to being inserted, some ptr as to the
relevancy of the message can help keep things straight. however the
inclusion of the entire text of a message when only a small fraction
is relevant is too much. i read my mail at 300 baud and i can't really
say that i like reading the same message n times.
shades%mit-oz.mit-mc.arpageoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/09/85)
>Most people seem to like it the other way. >As a demo, I am doing this one your way. >See what happens. > -Doug Gwyn Actually, I prefer this to 150-line quotes that are used to make a three-line point. (And I prefer eye surgery to 150-line quotes that end with "***REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE***"!) -- Geoff Kuenning Unix Consultant ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/09/85)
> unfortunately many msgs arrive out of sequence, and i read the rebuttal > before the statement. It's even worse. Think of USENET as a datagram service. Not only do messages arrive out of sequence; sometimes they don't arrive at all. Furthermore, lacking a split-screen news reader, we can't always see the point being replied to at the same time we see the reply. And even if we had split-screen news readers, we'd have to slough through the original article to find the point being replied to. > you are correct in that we dont have to include the entire msg tho. Fortunately, unedited inclusions of the original article are relatively rare, although not rare enough. (I'd move this to "net.news", except that the original posting came from INFO-C, and I don't think "net.news" gets gatewayed to the ARPANET.) Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/10/85)
Let's hear it for dundancy!
--
Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/11/85)
> Fortunately, unedited inclusions of the original article are relatively > rare, although not rare enough. It's going to get worse. We just installed the newest version of readnews, and I found to my surprise that the "f" function not only puts me in the editor, but DUPLICATES THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY, indented with ">" characters, and ending with ***REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE*** I predict most people will be too lazy to do the necessary editing to keep the net from being flooded with replications. There should also be a mechanism like a dead-man's switch, so the user must do something to each line he wants to keep, and have the rest disappear -- like replace the ">" with another character. I personally prefer to hear both sides of a phone conversation, so dialog on the net is improved, in my view, by EDITED inclusion of the item being commented upon. But I worry this "improvement" is counter-productive. -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
rhesmith@wlcrjs.UUCP (Richard H. E. Smith II) (02/12/85)
>> unfortunately many msgs arrive out of sequence, and i read the rebuttal >> before the statement. >It's even worse. Think of USENET as a datagram service. Not only do >messages arrive out of sequence; sometimes they don't arrive at all. Both missing messages & out-of-order happen all the time here, too. I vote for well-edited quotes. >(I'd move this to "net.news", except that the original posting came from >INFO-C, and I don't think "net.news" gets gatewayed to the ARPANET.) > Guy Harris They probably have smoother mail service over there on the "high-priced" net. Let them TRY to post to net.news! (;-)) -- ---------- Dick Smith ..ihnp4!wlcrjs!rhesmith
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (02/13/85)
> > Most people seem to like it the other way. > > As a demo, I am doing this one your way. > > See what happens. > > What was this all about? Thanks for helping with the demo, Ed.