I tootally agree! :)
--
Mark
I love my Linux Box...
REASON # 2 ...X-windows is just a suedonym.
Registered Linux user # 182496
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, John Glasscock wrote:
> Fran Parker wrote:
> >
> It is counterproductive to put new reply text below the original. The
> original is there to give reference to the new comments and the
> discussion. Bambi is correct in the realization that you put the
> important stuff first. That's why footnotes are at the bottom of a
> page, not the top.
>
> However, if you are commenting on several points in an email or
> discussion list, it is common and useful to set your new text below the
> original, again because of the context.
>
> Be logical. Sometimes directions are wrong or out-of-date.
>
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 08:03:23AM -0400, Charles A Edwards wrote:
> > > And while we are at the netiquette: The netiquette also states that
> > > replies should be *BELOW* the text that you quote, and that in a reply
> > > you should only qoute the absolutely neccessary parts of the message,
> > > and not the whole message!
> >
> >
> > Gosh, I wondered about that...I always put
> > my comments at the beginning...my thinking
> > was that it makes it easier to view the
> > responses on an existing thread. I didn't
> > realize it should go at the end. Guess I
> > will need to change how I respond.
> >
> > Thanks for the tip.
> >
> > Bambi
>
>
