On 24 Feb 2003 at 20:36, Gary A. Thurlow wrote:
> If you do impose such a rule, you will confirm the notion that you are
> more concerned with form as opposed to substance.
No, because bad form/formatting will hinder substantial replies.
Most correct-quoters will hesitate when replying to a wrong-
quote....where to start, where to break the circle....and some won't
post at all, for that reason only. Whether their reply would have
been the golden answer or not.
> Why would you
> edit/delete messages because they fail to meet your idea of the
> perfect email as to STYLE? I will resign when that rule is
> implemented. But at that point, you should rename this list to the
> "Administratively Correct List of No Substance but Classic Style".
>
> Gary Thurlow,
> Tired of people who make rules only because they CAN make rules.
You have seen more than one argument from me, so this comment is as
irrelevant as it can get.
This isn't a rule for the rule itself, this is a rule to run this
list smoothly.
Every newby lured into the wrong-quoting will face the Majordomo
filters, because he most likely won't snip the admin footer either.
And I will NOT let that admin-footer go through, multiple times, as
the ultimate proof of sloppiness.
> PS - My first statement makes no sense does it? That is because it is
> out of context. If we used this list correctly, the information I
> referred-to would appear at the beginning of the message with my NEW
> information at the end. As it is, I cannot "refer" to anything, I
> must "prefer" to that which follows. Ludicrous.
Then CUT the *entire* message you are replying to, if it's content is
not relevant for your reply.
Quoting itself is not mandatory, only the quote-order is.
Irrelevant quoting is just sloppy behaviour, and rude to those who
ARE sitting behind a slow modem, on a slow PC. Please don't
extrapolate your luxury situation to all people in all locations.
For the exact same reason HTML isn't allowed on this list either.
> PPS - Of course, you already know my feelings on quote order. It only
> makes sense to reply AFTER referencing the information that is
> referred-to. Any FAQs you might cite that suggests that new
> information be placed first were developed in the "olden days" when
> these mail lists were read online, at 300 baud. In order to save
> time, new stuff needed to be placed at the beginning. This "rule" is
> completely out of date and bears no semblance to the real world.
The fact that you are ahead in gear & infrastructure doesn't mean
that those who are *not* are out of date....
Consider yourself privileged, instead of slowed down by others.
Large parts of the world are still lacking cable/xDSL....and even
more have lousy quality phonelines.
I'd rather see this list serve a purpose for someone deep in the
bush, than for someone living near the top 1% of
infrastructure....the latter will have several alternative means to
find his information.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
