On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 09:36:35 at 09:36:35AM -0600, Glenn Williams (n0hn@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > I am inclined to say that I will not _read_, much less reply to 'bottom > posts.' It makes no sense whatever to me to scroll through 50 lines of > previously posted text, when 8 times out of ten, the subject is the only > thing I need to see before reading the reply. > Here we are again, confusing two separate habits. The *surely* wrong one is to repost "50 lines of previously posted text" as you and the bottom poster before you both did. This is wrong, boring and (on dialup) expensive wherever one's reply is. If the subject is the only thing to read before the reply (and I agree with you on this) why send again to hundreds of people something they already read? Once one has trimmed everything possible top or bottom becomes much less important. Longstanding internet fora tradition and common sense still request replies to *follow* the original text, but *only* when it was really needed to send it again, not to just comply with the top/bottom poster lazyness. Ciao, Marco Fioretti -- Marco Fioretti m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it Red Hat for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/en/ Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of man and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. Mark Twain -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
