On 7 Feb 2007 at 16:41, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Ken/Willem-Jan,
>
> Though in the past, it was considered "proper" netiquette to reply
> BELOW the post, it has become a standard today to reply above it. It
> allows for people to find and read the reply easily (instead of having
> to scroll down), and it also allows some email programs with a preview
> to, well, preview the reply. Personally, having been on the Internet
> since 1984, I prefer seeing replies on the top, or even intermixed in.
>
> I have no problem with long posts being "filtered", but I'd suggest
> there be no penalty assessed for replying on the top. It is a
> standard today, replying on the bottom, though considered "proper" in
> a past life, I believe is now not "required".
There is no punishment/filtering on reverse-quoting, only on the
almost default sloppy quoting that comes along with that: quoting the
admin-footer.
(a sure sign that you don't give a damn about content nor length of
that quoted section on the bottom)
--
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
***********************************************************
