> no... full quoting has always been requested... accepted and required
> for continuity's sake...
That's not true. This is primarily a newsgroup, and designed such that
people can skip back to read earlier messages. If you read it as a mailing
list, you just have to cope with that. (Anyway, I doubt many people read
n.p.m.general as a mailing list - there is far too much traffic.)
> as well as bottom posting the replies...
That's half true. Replies should be interspersed with the text, preceded
by a quote of the _relevant_ part of the previous post.
If you do what Philip consistently does, and Jonathan did, you have to
scroll past pages of irrelevant stuff before getting to their small point.
Over-zealous quoting is a pain, as it makes it much harder and more
time-consuming to read the group.
It takes one person five seconds to trim their message. It costs
_everyone_ (thousands of people) who reads it five seconds to scroll past
all the stuff. Which method leads to more efficient use of time? Multiply
that by 100 messages a day...
Gerv
