At 10:15 AM 10/1/01 +0900, Charles Jannuzi wrote:
>Chip directed this at me, so I'll respond below:
if you hadn't noticed, it's typical and appropriate to respond in-line _to_ _someone_. like i just did to you. is it beyond notice, those of you who don't bother, that about 3/4 of the main posters on this list respond in-line.
top posting (leaving it all hanging off the end of your post like a giant encrusted dingleberry) is considered rude simply because it appears that you, the writer, are not engaging with the person you are responding to. (yes, i do it; now you know why! :) it is also rude, even if you don't it intend it to be rude because the reader (you have an audience of about 300 ppl!) has to scroll down, sometimes a couple of screens, until they can actually see who you are responding to. if you are engaged in a disucsion on the same thread with two ormore people, it's not always clear and sometimes it matter. it is a pain in the arse if you're interested in following a discussion. it's nice to be able to actually know WHO they are responding to before you read the response to that person. capiche?
and this latest nonsense of wiping out all the text has got to stop. you're not an AOLuser, so there's no excuse. if your mail reader quotes stupidly, then i'll explain to you how to fix that so it uses Internet quoting style instead of lame AOLuser style. let me know, i'm really a pussycat most of the time.
i'd (and i'm sure others) would like to know who you're replying to. so when you just jump into a thread without reference to the post or post that prompted your reply, your post is out of context. it's be nice if you could give it at least _some_ context for those of us following along.
this way, when you wipe out all the text, then i haven't a friggin clue what prompted you to jump in most of the other threads you've posted on. this one is an exception, and thanks for replying in-line! it's appreciated by at least 3/4 of the members of this list.
kelley