That was my thought as well. It made
sense to me...it was doing unto others
as I wanted it done to me...I dislike
inefficiency..with so many messages
to got through on this list, it seems
very inefficient to have to scroll
to the bottom of so many replies, most
of which I have already read earlier,
to get to the new post.
Thanks,
Bambi
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 Sometimes directions are wrong or out-of-date.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
>
> --
> John Glasscock
> Administrator & Programmer
> EtherDog MultiMedia
> 3821 N Sugar Lane
> Bloomington, IN 47404
> tel:+1.812.876.5233
> fax:+1.508.256.2413
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Registered Linux User# 183536
> on Registered Linux Box# 81201
>
> "Save the world, eschew Microsoft."
