John Mikes wrote:
> ... Those posts were accessible (for me) that started with a
> statement of the writer and not a lot of copies with some reply-lines
> interjected. I know (and like to use) to copy the phrases to reply to but
> even in a 2-week archiving it turns sour. After the first 30-40 post-reviews
> I got dizzy. This pertains to the regular listpost.

And with regard to Russell's posts:
> Your posts are one degree worse:
> You had 32 attachment-convoluted posts in the 270 of the 20 day everything
> list. The procedure
> to glance at your text (and I like to read what you wrote) I have to select
> the attachment, then call it up, then select open, then read it, and - If I
> want to save it: copy or cut it to file in 3-5 more clicks.

The list has certainly been active lately!

John, you might want to read the list via the archive at
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/ .  It's very readable and it does
not choke on Russell's posts, which are actually perfectly legal email
formats and are legible on many mail readers.  Plus you won't be bothered
by email interruptions.  You can also use the thread index there which
will help you to follow conversations.

However I would like to echo John's complaint about excessive quoting.
There is no need to quote the complete content of another message before
replying.  Especially lately, people are conversing quickly and the
previous message was typically sent only a few hours or a day earlier.
We can all remember what was said, or go back in the thread and see it.
Just a brief quote to set the stage should be enough.

If you want to reply point by point, fine, in that case it does make sense
to quote each point before replying.  But quoting the whole message is
almost never necessary.

Hal Finney

Reply via email to