On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 09:25 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
"Willem-Jan Markerink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
And for that reason only you *should* try to break the wrong concept, every time you see one....since only by quoting on the bottom yourself, you too will only *then* start cutting quotes yourself....
Notice that his email actually did contain plenty of quoted garbage below his message.
Jim Davis
I'm not sure which "his" your pronoun is referring to, though I am certain as to whom and when WJM referred. Actually, I quoted only what I thought was relevant giving the context of the original message, which I trimmed, and also the second poster's brief comments, which I was commenting on. By doing this, I got rid of *all* "garbage", as I interpreted it, and kept the discussion in order. It wasn't necessary for me to reply at bottom to bring about:
<quote>
<end quote>only by quoting on the bottom yourself, you too will only *then* start cutting quotes yourself....
Apparently the "only/then" structure of this sentence is untrue because I *did* in fact, "start" cutting my quotes without replying below.
It is really just a matter of preference by those who are in the position of power through which to assert those preferences (not just WJM, but also the list "regulars" who voice an opinion). In terms of making chronological sense of the reply structure, both systems work, but mixing them does not. Either way, it *should* be sufficient just to ask users to look over previous messages and trim replies, but since it doesn't seem to be sufficient, then WJM's point on the matter doesn't seem unreasonable, and I generally follow his request on placement of replies regardless of its convenience to my personal workflow. I do find the debate to be stale, however.
I did hope to avoid the issue of placement by noting the reason for replying at the top, but I see now that it just brought the topic up for discussion more explicitly. I will not make this mistake again. In fact, despite the fact that before replying to Jim's comments above, and the embedded comments of WJM, I was not annoyed by the whole issue, I am now, and even more particularly so with the willingness of members to jump on the slightest issue of protocol or manners. Seems to me that this, much more than quote order, or even unwillingness to take the time to cut "garbage" out of replies, displays rudeness, contrariness and unkindness. And so, I can be certain that i won't make this mistake again anytime soon, while also freeing myself from a large bit of mailbox "garbage" (this message included), both annoying and not so annoying, by unsubscribing (though, at the risk of making my point less, um, pointed, and if WJM doesn't remove me right away, I may just stick around for a day or two to see any responses that this post of mine generates...can you "regulars" resist? I will be curious to know--you can do it...the issue is still settled so what would the use be? Either way, I will be gone shortly.)
Good luck all, and happy post replying, reordering and trimming, and I hope you can enjoy the political debate, and the being bitched at, that arise from failing to do so "properly". And, with absolutely no sarcasm intended, I truly do hope, for each of you, that your photographs turn out beautifully.
Happy Trails,
Mike
PS. The funniest thing...I just noticed that Jim's email program, probably, actually anticipates the difficulties of, and opinions on, reply ordering, while attempting to be accommodating to either ordering style, by using the either/or of "wrote/replied" in the seemingly program generated line:
"Willem-Jan Markerink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
"wrote/replied to"!! How appropriate! The program must have been designed by a someone who realizes that there are much more important issues! You didn't do that intentionally, did you Jim?
Michael J. Shupe M.J.Shupe Photography, Streetcar Station Michigan Tech University www.northernlightsgallery.com
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
