From: Kim Madsen > Bob McConnell wrote on 23/12/2009 14:35: >> From: Andy Shellam >> >>>> And I was pointing out that this would not be a valid >>>> test when there is a caching DNS on the LAN. >> >>> I also pointed out how to avoid caching issues - the >>> comment was aimed at the author of the message before mine. >>> >>>> Too much of the conversation and most of the attribution >>>> was stripped too early for this to be coherent. >>> Why the negativity? A question was asked and several >>> possible solutions were provided based on that original >>> question. All the "conversation" was relevant IMO. >> >> But long before it was done it was impossible to tell who had asked >> which questions, who had provided which answers and who had countered >> those answers. In several instances, replies appeared to be directed to >> the wrong individuals. > >> Some people here tend to go way too far when trimming context from >> replies. Yes, I know it gets difficult to read when there are more than >> ten or twelve levels of attribution, but stripping all but the last >> layer is even worse. > > No, that's called netetiquette, have a look at: > http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/etiquitte_1.html > > Quote: "When responding to E-Mail, don't quote the entire original > message in your reply. Only quote the relevant parts, and only to the > extent that they will help orient the recipient on your reply."
The problem arises when too many of the relevant parts are also removed, which happened far too often on this thread as well as others. When the core context is not retained, the conversation drifts and quickly becomes useless to either the early posters or later readers. I did not mean to be rude, but to point out what I see as a serious problem that has been growing on this list recently. On the other hand, I have not had my cup of hot chocolate yet this morning, so am probably not completely awake yet. Bob McConnell -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
