At 09:18 09/12/2000 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > 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.)
Oh, I do. But then I can skip stuff quickly and have it 'thread' if I need
to. And I hate newsgroup readers.
> > 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.
Being guilty of it myself sometimes, when I've time enough to comment but
not enough to edit (its a psychological thing), I have it at both ends,
certainly complaining about it doesn't win you back any time, and for some
I just flip to the end of the message and scan read backwards.
On the whole I try to comment in context.
In other fora, people complain bitterly about top-posting, personally I can
think of more useful irritants to bicker about, like the weather.
Simon
