Um, perhaps you missed the basic point, but I *do* like that you middle quoted !! (Or perhaps you got my basic point and I missed that !)
The basic point is NOT that people do stupid things, intentionally or unintentionally, but rather that dictating a single way of doing things that REQUIRES that the cutter *ALWAYS FULLY* understand the original content and its' implications is arrogant in the extreme and bad results are more likely that with not cutting anything. And I am also confident readers of my top-posting will see the value in this method on this occasion. Then again maybe not. (Pun intentional...grin) Very best regards; Bob Finch > On 6/16/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> > Quoting a whole thread from the start is useless if it doesn't have >> anything to do with the thing you're replying to. If people want to >> read the whole thread, they can read the archives. >> > >> >> Hey gang; >> >> Here is an example of a cut and quote. Or if you will, and OVERLY-cut >> and quote followed by my bottom posting. >> > > well then too bad - some people will just never learn (or *bother*) to > quote properly. What can u do with them? Burn them at the stake? > > And can u ever stop them. The point is not the method, - but the > method *plus person* that makes the final email output good. Of course > when we/i recommend whatever methods of quoting here, we do so with a > certain basic assumption that the person we're recommending it to will > be intelligent, or honest enough, to be able to do it properly. > > So do stupid people/evil people misusing a good email convention to do > things make that email convention wrong? Should we rule out that > method then, just because these people misuse, or abuse it then? Used > well, a good thing can be good. Used badly, any good or bad thing will > always be bad. Case in point, the power and flexibility of Linux. So > there. End of discussion, i hope? > > Going by the same reasoning, all guns are bad, all fire is bad, etc. > etc. etc... > > >> The point ? - > If bottom posting encourages cutting text to create a >> quote, it is sometimes arrogant to be cutting anything. i.e How do you >> know if you have cut enough? What if your interpretation of what was >> being said is wrong, and you cut too much ? >> > > well u just use ur common sense. And if anybody is motivated enough to > want to find out about the original discussion, they can then (as has > been mentioned) refer to the archives. > > >> Further I have seen intentional cutting of text to cloud, or worse, >> change the original meaning(s). >> > > so? can u stop them anyway, if their intention is to do the same? And > again, anybody motivated enough to dig into the matter will be able to > check the archives. > >> >> Perhaps it is best if we not try to dictate any particular method of >> interaction. >> > > this is where i learn to quote Jason Chu's signature, slightly modified > - > > "If you can take it, things will just happen. If you cannot take it, > things will still happen." > > -jf > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
