|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: top-replies was Re: [PLUG] kernel parameters
|
I'm going to commit the sin in question. There is a reason to do it
this way. 1. If the person reading the reply needs info from the
original, it's there. 2. If the individual doesn't need it, he
or she can get the new info and delete quickly. 3. Some of us
have precious little time to get through the messages.
If the message is purely text, this is not really a creator of
bandwidth problems. The problem comes from those messages include
attachments.
bs
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Tobias DiPasquale wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 15:01, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > There's no justification beyond laziness for a top-reply. It shows
> > that you didn't care enough to make your message legible, in which
> > case I probably don't care enough to answer your questions.
>
> I'm going to be forced to agree with Gabriel on this one. Top-posting is
> not only lazy, but likely to raise the ire of experienced email users if
> repeated. I frequently will not reply to top-posted questions, on this
> list and others. I know that there is no "Email FAQ" that tells all new
> Internet users how to properly form email, but there ought to be, and
> that should be FAQ #1.
>
> --
> Tobias DiPasquale, www.cbcg.net
> 88FA 30C9 1E63 CFE2 CBD8 37C4 DA1C E2BF 1D26 F036
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|