"yusuf" <yusufm@gmail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> --
>> Randy[/color][/color]
....
(included signature, see below)
[color=blue]
> if your following a thread, then you are just interested in the latest
> post. If not, then you want to scroll down through the last posts and
> read them...[/color]
That's because you are missing half the point on how to respond.
You should *not* include the entire previous post in your reply, but
only enough of it to give context to your reply. The ability to
read the entire previous post is already there, as every reply contains
a References: header with, at least, the previous post in the thread
of responses, and the news-server holds that message for some time
(and after that there's Google Groups).
You should also trim the signature of the previous message, unless
explicitly replying to it (and complaining about other peoples'
signatures is not a good idea, unless it accidentally happens to
be on topic :).
[color=blue]
> but anyways, if most people are used to this, then I guess
> it has the efficiency of the masses.[/color]
This response style (selectiv quoting, interleaved replies) has
evolved over a *long* time. It is tailored for newsgroups, and I do
believe it is the most efficient and readable style for that.
It is *not* necessarily a good style for e-mail conversations, since
a complete history is sometimes necessary to introduce a new person
to a long conversation. For personal e-mails, that I don't expect
to see bouced around, I use interleaved style. For business e-mails,
I use top posting and full quotes. It's all about the expected usage
of the message.
And it is not rude. Not respecting that others prefer a specific style
of replies might be construed as rude, by them, but mostly it's just a
bad way to get those peoples' help.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'