This has been discussed before, and the general consensus is, there is no general consensus. For posts to long replies, option 3 is good, but when replying to only 2 or 3 points, one of the other will do. I find that replies at the top of the email work much better for me, because it's irritating to have to scroll to the bottom of every email to see the latest, and I rarely need to read the initial post to get the message anyway.
But because some email clients do it one way, and others do it another, we end up with posts and quotes all haphazardly mingled together in a completely confusing manner. So we fall back onto the principle of only quoting the last 2 posts at the most, and all is well. Bob On Jul 15, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Richmond wrote: > Which is better: > > 1. To reply to a message by prefacing it with the new text? > > 2. To reply to a message by writing after it? > > 3. To comment intertextually so that comments sit next to > the parts of the previous message they are directly relevant to? > > I favour #3, because, like comments in code/scripting it is easy for a reader > to see to what > a comment refers. > > However . . . > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
