Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

This was meant to be private, not via the list. I am not picking on Jerry alone, as many who are receiving these reminders will attest. In-line vs top posting, whatever. Neither is any excuse for the laziness of not trimming. -- Regards, Clif Moderator wrote: QUOTING NAG Please refrain fro

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

bject: Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is "wrong-posting", and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

If it's not at the top it generally goes in the deleted folder. I haven't got time to go searching through the text for an answer. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [ADMIN]

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is "wrong-posting", and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scrol

RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Ray: I don't much agree with your analysis. Definitive statements such as "...top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else" and "...there really are no valid reasons to top-post,..." and "...Insisting on top-posting...is just plain rude and self serving." are incorr

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Top Posting vs. Bottom Posting - didn't I see this in Gulliver's Travels with Big Endians and Little Endians? Where is our technical moxie boys and girls? With this group, I figured this would morph into a discussion on which of us could whip out a better e-mail client for parsing the respon

RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

t: RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING Except - the most important thing is COURTESY. To OTHER PEOPLE. I'm amazed I've stayed out of this as long as I have :-) The problem is that top-posting encourages people to "not trim". That leads to, typically,

RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

vid Wolverton Sent: 18 February 2004 13:47 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING I have to say, I just loaded Outlook 2003, and sort EVERYTHING by conversation... I'm kinda sorry people are now making efforts to

RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

I have to say, I just loaded Outlook 2003, and sort EVERYTHING by conversation... I'm kinda sorry people are now making efforts to complying with 'netiquette', because 'top posts' are SO much easier to use in this venue - it is awesome to be able to run through the whole set of topics in the prev

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is "wrong-posting", and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scrol

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is "wrong-posting", and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scrol

RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

.N. 068 914 867 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray DeGennaro at Eaglerock IS Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING >Susan, >

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Susan, Curious, I find the reverse to be true. Since I usually read in threads, I find that having to scroll through the last part to get to the current part mildly annoying. The information flow problem is that messages, especially email, don't always arrive and sort threaded. This is probl

Re: [OT] Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:01:21 +0100, you wrote: > > >kevin zollinger wrote: > >>... >>IHNSHO, ... >> >Wich means? In His Not So Humble Opinion -- Allen Egerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: [OT] Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

kevin zollinger wrote: ... IHNSHO, ... Wich means? -- mats -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

[OT] Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Results <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Susan, > Curious, I find the reverse to be true. Since I usually read in > threads, I find that having to scroll through the last part to get to > the current part mildly annoying. With the post after, I find myself > skipping

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Susan, Curious, I find the reverse to be true. Since I usually read in threads, I find that having to scroll through the last part to get to the current part mildly annoying. With the post after, I find myself skipping replies because the top looks familiar when I scan through my mail. -

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

Ray DeGennaro at Eaglerock IS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > with some explanations of why Netiquette is the way is it. Ray, thank you for the informative links. Interesting to discover that w

Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING

If you are replying to several points, do not top-post. This one really should be: Don't Top-Post, especially if the reply is already "Right Posted". Here's two links: with some explanations of