* Brian Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030227 22:10 PST]: > Sorry Kent, I tried posting after as a response and it sucks. I use > spell checking and as most spell checkers are pretty dumb and start at > the top, I end up having to correct or skip other people's misspelled > words before I get to my own. The other way round, like I am doing now, > I can stop the spell check at the end of my section. I accept your
spelling? their than important more not order words' Are If your spell-checker doesn't work, drop it. The readers of this list (and the people most likely to help you) don't care if you mis-spell a few words, but do care that messages' texts are in logical, chronological order. The history of a thread will be stored in the threaded nature of the messages, and does not need to be tacked on in reverse-chronological order at the bottom of each message in the thread. That way is wasteful, and gives headaches to the poor people who later find themselves reading umop-apisdn. > response and respect your opinion, but this issue seems even less likely > to go anywhere than the issue of trying to get people to stop cutting up > the postings and interspersing their reply. This is, in fact, the proper way to reply to a message. Use a proper attribution, so future users can tell who wrote what, and put your responses spatially and logically just after the points you're responding to. Don't include the full text of the message; just include the relevant parts. For example, my comments only apply to the part of your post that discussed posting styles, so I'm trimming away the parts I'm not responding to (the networking part). good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.debian.org/ Set your computer Free.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
