Peck@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA.UUCP (02/19/87)
Perhaps I'm not the one to be saying this, but someone should and I've
been sitting here quitely all this time waiting for someone to speak up.
Will everyone PLEASE stop including other people's messages in
theirs!! It's getting out of hand. The most annoying example of this
is the recent flood of quoted messages about the ST's rf modulator. It
seems that there are always a select group of people who have to correct
every little thing that someone who obviously doesn't know what he's
talking about says. The cool thing to do in that situation is what 95%
of this digest mailing list did.
IGNORE IT.
Back to why I wrote this message: those annoying >'s in front of
text from messages I just read 1 1/2 minutes ago. If you noticed, the
welcome message says not to do that. Two slaps on the wrist for all who
did. (Four for those who broke the sentence which follows the one that
says not to quote long passages and says not to quote long passages from
somone else who quoted a long passage. (got that))
What I'm floundering around trying to say is that I'm following this
group rather intently, and if someone references a message, I'll
probably know what it refers to. If not, I'll look in the previous
messages. If I still can't find it, and I'm interested, I'll send
PRIVATE mail.
If I'm not following the messages closely however, the previous
references aren't going to help me anyway, and they certainly are
annoying.
Thanks,
rodney
rodp@radc-multics.arpagordon@cae780.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <870218233112.027926@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA> Peck@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA (Rodney) writes: > > Will everyone PLEASE stop including other people's messages in >theirs!! It's getting out of hand. The most annoying example of this > [...] > What I'm floundering around trying to say is that I'm following this >group rather intently, and if someone references a message, I'll >probably know what it refers to. If not, I'll look in the previous >messages. If I still can't find it, and I'm interested, I'll send >PRIVATE mail. Please don't follow the advice given above. Not all of us are on ARPA, and the usenet distribution characteristics make thet strategy useless. I'm on a backbone site, so I probably get better service than most users. It is still not uncommon to get a reply ("Re: xxxx") on Tuesday and the original on Thursday. Due to the widely varying distribution times, it is also quite common to get a reply to a message which passed through weeks ago. In either case, without a SMALL amount of quoted material, the reply is useless. Yes, including too much quoted text is bad, wasteful, distracting, etc. On the other hand, so is including too little ... FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!cae780!gordon [or gordon@cae780.CAE.TEK.COM]
preston@felix.UUCP (02/20/87)
>Yes, including too much quoted text is bad, wasteful, distracting, etc. On >the other hand, so is including too little ... Precisely!
drk7956@cec2.UUCP (02/22/87)
In article <870218233112.027926@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA> Peck@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA (Rodney) writes: > > Perhaps I'm not the one to be saying this, but someone should and I've >been sitting here quitely all this time waiting for someone to speak up. > Will everyone PLEASE stop including other people's messages in >theirs!! > [...] > rodney > rodp@radc-multics.arpa My site received the reply to this article before it received the article itself. I think that this in itself says plenty in support of continuing to include (brief and relevant) quoted sections in replies, in order to properly define the context of the reply. Dave Kohr (drk7956@cec2) (Sorry, but I don't know the path.)
gordon@sage.UUCP (02/25/87)
In article <2313@felix.UUCP> preston@felix.UUCP (Preston L. Bannister) writes: >>Yes, including too much quoted text is bad, wasteful, distracting, etc. On Just as annoying, is the insistance of many people to have those massive silly tails on the end of all there articles. A simple where you are message (only info not added to the top anyway) is all that is required, and then only if you want direct response (ie not via news)