On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 16:03:55 PM -0000, mike scott
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2008 at 15:57, M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 14:32:29 PM -0000, mike scott
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> ...
> > > Whatever others on the list may think, for my own part I consider it a
> > > thorough waste of good people's time to answer, for example, a
> > > subjectless message
>
> Now there I take slight umbrage. Please, everyone, don't selectively
> edit messages in this way.
The reason why I intentionally snipped the second part of your
statement:
> ... asking (for the umpteenth time) whether OOo runs on
> Vista.........."
is that I want to point out that answering _any_ subjectless message,
regardless of the subscription status of its author, even if it
contains a question nobody asked before, is a waste of good people's
time.
If the question is, say, "how to sort rows in calc" and the
_answerer_, if not the poster, properly labels the answer, all the
other subscribers will know, without wasting time, what the message is
about and will open it if they want to learn the same thing.
Without wasting everybody's time and bandwidth the next day asking
"how to sort rows in calc", at risk of being told "we explained this
just yesterday, why didn't you read it?". Another poster today
explained this very effectively.
Marco
--
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you: http://digifreedom.net/node/84
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
