Chris, I read hundreds of emails a day as do many people. It's ridiculous to suggest that the contexts of all those posts should be remembered or looked up.
Edgar On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:51 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Sorry multiple phone word auto.corrects hit that post. Not clear indeed. > > Should read: > > Not remembering the context or having a mail reader sufficiently smart to > pull up whatever context is needing is insulting to the group whose time you > are spending by writing a post, old school wise. > > I.e. Quoting it all each time in a n^2 > process seems rude to me. Those of us that are reading the texts are > inconvenienced to help this who are inattentive. > > Tho I realize customs have shifted in less technical fora. > > On Nov 25, 2012 5:36 PM, "Edgar Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > It's not very clear what you are suggesting here but you seem to be > > agreeing with me... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 7:25 PM, ChrisAustinLane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris Austin-Lane > > > Sent from a cell phone > > > > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 15:43, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Chris, > > >> > > >> That etiquette applies to snipping posts down the thread aways. 3 or 4 > > >> previous posts down depending on context. Snipping the immediately > > >> preceding post you are replying to including the poster's name is > > >> discourteous and insulting to that poster and also destroys the context > > >> of the reply tending to make it less meaningful or relevant.. > > >> > > >> Edgar > > >> as moderator > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Nov 25, 2012, at 5:35 PM, ChrisAustinLane wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I personally find the endlessly growing requoted and unsnipped emails > > >>> to be a breach of nettiquette. Top posting and quoting the entire > > >>> thread is traditionally frowned on in text only fora, and was not > > >>> normal until about ten years ago when MS Outlook became so common. > > >>> > > >>> On my phone the bandwidth is not neglegible and there is an additional > > >>> cost of scrolling time to skip all the quoted stuff. > > >>> > > >>> I'd buy the argument about context if people actually read carefully > > >>> enough for that to matter but there is so much talking past one another > > >>> that the context doesn't matter. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Chris Austin-Lane > > >>> Sent from a cell phone > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 4:52, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Joe, > > >>>> > > >>>> It destroys context when you snip off parts of the post you are > > >>>> replying to. > > >>>> > > >>>> And it's impolite as well. > > >>>> > > >>>> Additionally the bandwidth saved from a few lines of TEXT is totally > > >>>> insignificant. > > >>>> > > >>>> I tell you this a co-moderator. > > >>>> > > >>>> Edgar > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Nov 24, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Joe wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Edgar, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> How fallibly un-perspicacious of you! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I *always* do that, and always have done. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Saves bandwidth, which is a commodity. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --Joe > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ouch! I thought we were being nice to each other? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And btw what's this sudden snipping compulsion you have to snip off > > >>>>>> the bottom of the posts you are responding to? > > >>>>> [snip] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > >
