comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Humble request
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Humble request [message #28285 is a reply to message #28229] Fri, 30 November 2001 06:12 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Robert Stockwell is currently offline  Robert Stockwell
Messages: 74
Registered: October 2001
Member
I wholeheartedly agree!
-bob

PS yes its just a joke

Bhautik Joshi wrote:

>> Would it be too much to ask that some of us go to our NewsReader
>> preferences and change an option to "Insert your reply ABOVE the quoted
>> message"? For some threads, a one-line reply can be tucked into the very
>> end of a 200-line quote that we read before. Kind of inconvenient.
>>
>
> In some newsgroups, this little issue has sparked what has come close to
> apocalyptic flame wars. There's an interesing little FAQ about quoting
> in newsgroups here:
>
> http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
>
> I'm not taking sides on the issue, but here is what the FAQ has to say
> about it:
>
> Where is the best place to put quoted text? Above or below my comments?
>
> Above! Some more recent standard email and newsreader programs have
> assumed a very problematic feature. They include the message which
> you are responding to below your message. Don't allow that to happen.
> The proper order is
>
>> Quote 1 (properly pruned)
>
> Your response 1
>
>> Quote 2 (properly pruned)
>
> Your response 2
>
> In other words
> * Put each, appropriately trimmed item that you choose to quote
> before each of your own comments, respectively.
> * Remove any remaining "postquoting". Let me emphasize. Do not
> leave the entire earlier posting, which you have been responding
> to, at the end of your own posting.
>
> Some (often obscure) Usenet newsgroups and Microsoft's own newsgroups
> (hardly surprising!) may show and have developed different
> preferences and practices as to the order and extent of quoting. This
> definitely is not what to go by in general on the Usenet news. Also,
> one of the arguments that has been posed in favor of the excessive
> quoting is that threads may be broken and full quoting is therefore
> imperative to be able to follow what is going on. No, that is what
> the news repositories are for. Besides, in well-planned quoting it is
> amply sufficient to give the essence. Concise and at the same time
> informative quoting indeed is a skill to be practiced.
>
> Of course it is fair to ask why
>
>> Quote 1 (properly pruned)
> Your response 1
>> Quote 2 (properly pruned)
> Your response 2
>
> is better than
>
> Your entire response
>
>> All old quoted
>
> Email and Usenet news are typically used for modern, often almost
> real-time exchanges which can closely resemble a verbal discussion
> rather than a correspondence by snailmail where the time between the
> letters is days or weeks. In a good discussion one interacts, rather
> than keeps up separate monologues. Thus it is very natural to quote a
> point, respond, quote the second point, respond and so forth.
>
> Adapted from an advisory posting by Bob Gootee: Answering above the
> the original message is called top posting. Sometimes also called the
> Jeopardy style. Usenet is Q & A not A & Q. (The name obviously comes
> from the game of Jeopardy, where the competitor is given the answer
> before the question.)
>
> As for the Microsoft's public newsgroups even there the official
> policy warns against quoting below your answer and against excessive
> quoting!
>
> So, for all the purists out there, there you go :)
>
> Cheers,
> B.
>
>
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: Recursive object destruction, Was: IDL Shapefile Object
Next Topic: routine for geometric mean regression

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 13:07:02 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00471 seconds