Hi James,
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 04:44:00PM -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> To the entire list:
>
> This is definitely ACCEPTABLE behavior according the the RFC. I have
> reminded Christian of this off-list.
I don't care a f**k whether that is acceptable behaviour to some RFC or
other guidelines.
> Per RFC 1855, Netiquette Guidelines,
>
> Top posts are allowed if the reply is short, and informative.
The quoted part was neither short nor informative.
> At no
> point are bottom posts to be used, and the best method is to intersperse
> your reply.
Yes. You threatening me to be unsubscribed/banned from the list (in PM)
because of the comment in the last post, then I laugh at you in public.
> Thus Andrew's reply is definately acceptable per the RFC.
That's not the point. It makes reading the mail and handling the mail a
*lot* harder than a reasonable quoting style.
And BTW: I strongly suggest that you re-read that RFE.
cite from 3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews:
,----
| If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
| summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
^^^^^^^^^
| enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
| readers understand when they start to read your response. Since
| NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from
| one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message
| before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not
| include the entire original!
`----
emphasis on summarize. Not quoting the whole stuff. And as well:
Summarize at the top, put your stuff below the summary.
And from further above:
,----
| Be brief without being overly terse. When replying to a message,
| include enough original material to be understood but no more. It is
| extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including all the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
`----
Emphasis added for your convenience.
Honestly, I don't have the slightest clue where your assumption (that
fullquotes or top-postings in general are "acceptable" in the sense of
"not bad") comes from. Surely not from the RFC. Or you have a really,
really different understanding of the english language than me. (What
is of course possible, since I only learnt english in school, but ...)
> This should be the last message regarding this topic.
Stop this fullquoting or I'll simply ignore you.
Yes, I regard myself as more experienced than the average. I can help
others, don't need help myself.
If you don't want my assistance, use crappy quoting. If you want replies
from me and other experienced people, then keep your posts readable.
Experience shows that people that write fullquotes do not read that was
written. That's an empirical fact. I don't want to waste my time
wrinting stuff over and over again just because somebody was too lazy to
use proper quoting and instead just skimmed over the post, hitting reply
before thinking.
ciao
Christian
--
NP: Korn - Wake Up
Join #qa.OpenOffice.org on irc.freenode.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
