At some point hitherto, Nick Wilson hath spake thusly: > * On 21-01-02 at 16:58 > * Derek D. Martin said.... > > [Preben said:] > > > > Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21/01/2002 (14:47) : > > > > > people did that they don't that would make my life easier. However, if > > > > > we spend all our time worrying about every minority > > > > > problem/consideration we'll never get *anything* done :) > > > > > > > > Is it not a minority problem. > > > > > > Sure it is, ask people who have reasonable sight how many > > > blind/partially blind people they know. > > > > This is irrelevant. Over-quoting is inconsiderate, and affects > > everyone. It causes us to have to wade through a bunch of irrelevant > > garbage to get at (and often FIND) the author's point. Quoting out of > > context (i.e. writing your reply and then quoting the whole message > > after what you've written ) is also a problem, because it removes the > > context of the comment, increases ambiguity, and thereby makes it > > harder to get the author's point, and increases the likelihood that it > > will be misunderstood by a wide audience. > > Well we certainly agree so far. Apart from the 'this is irrelevant bit' > If you go back over the messages in the thread you'll see the point.
See above where Preben said this is not a minority problem. He was refering to the fact that it is a much BROADER problem than just one that affects minorities. Your comment is irrelevant to that argument. (Preben: please correct me if I'm mistaken.) > > > I think cutting down emails is definately a good thing but the way > > > you've cut this for example is overdoing it. That's a *very* > > > selective piece of editing there Preben. > > > > I disagree entirely. The comment Preben quoted above is EXACTLY the > > ammount that is needed to identify what his comment is in reference to > > less. > > And there's where we differ, my point was just that the line above where > preben decided to quote me was rather important. If you've been following the thread, it's not important. Because you've already read it. :) If you're not following the thread, but you suddenly decide it's important, GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD! You've already received the e-mails, so you should have them. If you don't, there's always the archives. (mutt-users has archives, doesn't it?) > Is that where the hostile tone is coming from? Not hostile. Matter-of-fact, yes. Occasionally emphatic, yes. But never hostile. > > > (assuming you've been following the thread at all), no more and no > > Come on............. :) Come on where? My point is perfectly valid. You've either read the thread or you haven't... If not, then why jump into the middle of it, without reading it? Ok, ok, I admit I do this occasionally too. But if you don't have enough context in a message from a thread, then you really ought to (re)read the thread to see what it's about, rather than expecting everyone else to waste bandwidth. -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------- I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
msg23460/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
