tldr
John Seago wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2008 12:15:07 Kyle Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Top posting worked just fine in that context due to the reply not
addressing any part of the post in particular.
To criticise the volume of the original post, (as posted in the digest), and
then to include the original post in its entirety, seems somewhat perverse,
would you not agree? Perhaps the suggestion that "it might be an idea to have
a digest / list of contents at the top of such mail-outs", would have
sufficed.
The part that you quote isn't even in the email that Andrew replied to, and
is only present in the digest version that you subscribe to.
Here is the material written by Andrew Back in the Email to the Scottish list
I can only speak for myself here, but must say that whilst curious as to
what you guys had organised, I started to lose the will to live as I paged
down. So it might be an idea to have a digest / list of contents at the
top of such mail-outs. So that folks can quickly see if there is
anything that is of interest to them and then read on if so. The
voluminous monolithic blocks of text approach I find a bit overbearing!
I quoted only the last sentence of the paragraph, I cannot see any difference
between the post, (threaded), to the Scottish list, and the post to the
Digest of the Scottish list. Might it be that you are referring to the
subject line?
The point remains that complaints that "voluminous monolithic blocks of text"
are found to be overbearing, and that they further cause a loss of will to
live, lose their impact when made above, "voluminous monolithic blocks of
text". Or could it be that Andrew Back, whilst intending to edit the material
he was replying to, forgot to do so? Mayhap he will enlighten us. As to the
differences between the threaded list and the digest, one takes that that
meets ones needs.
Whilst the following apply more to usenet
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
they might perhaps be considered as examples of 'good practice' as editing
quoted material does prevent successive posts getting longer and longer when
the entirety of each previous post is quoted, would you not agree?
_______________________________________________
Scottish mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish
