You, me and many others it seems.
I will continue to add them to the
beginning ...unless I am responding
directly to individual portions of
a message, in context. It just
makes sense and it looks like others
appreciate it as well.
I didn't think it was 'wrong' and
wasn't trying to offend, I was just
doing what made sense to me :)
Bambi
Mark Weaver wrote:
>
> 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 Sometimes directions are wrong or out-of-date.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
> >
> >
