Philipp Haselwarter <[email protected]> writes: > ---8<---[snipped 27 lines: everything :p]---8<--- > > Well I tend to leave in just the parts I'm directly answering/referring > to, which is usually the outermost level of citation. If someone wants > to follow a thread, he can do just that - read the thread. > When the whole conversation is quoted each time, it just gets messy, > IMHO.
Agreed and no one said the lot should be left : hence the cursor position at the top to encourage reread and snipping. Something I do tend to do but forget as well , not often but it happens - as do most people at some stage. > And as you're saying yourself Richard, people just get fed up with > having to «cherrypick» through every message and simply "M->", quoting the > whole thing. > Feel free to disagree if you prefer a different approach, I'm always > curious! No one would disagree that courteous snipping is a boon! Overly snipping is a hindrance in many groups were people dont keep a local copy and things can expire though. If any part of a reply refers to something snipped it is, of course, somewhat annoying to have to traverse the thread tree to see what it might be referring to. All in all I think we agree. The main crux of my comment though, which you snipped ;), was the part about *why* the cursor is where it is. I think it makes sense. In this case you oversnipped and for my comments to make sense I need to put some context back in :- I originally said this:- ,---- | Its this way on purpose I would guess to encourage people to snip and to | review context. `---- The one thing I must admit I dont like is the non standard "supercite" or whatever its called - I find the insertion of the authors initials on the left hand side totally non standard and very "busy on the eyes" - it almost drags your attention away from the thread itself. But all to their own. regards r. _______________________________________________ info-gnus-english mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english
