On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 05:57:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote: > Apparently even proper conversational quoting is too complex for you > to follow. I was responding to a comment on a comment on an earlier > post of mine. Since I wrote that earlier post, I think I have a pretty > good idea what it was about.
Your post didn't read that way. There is no need to be abusive, is there? > > I see now, how some of the posts in this thread seemed so weird! So > > in this light, you'll see that the mutt-users mailing list just > > happens to represent the majority of posters on mailing lists. > > Your conclusion seems to be drawn from thin air, since there's not a > shred of evidence or even logic behind it. Mutt users, including the > members of this list, comprise a minute segment of the email using, > and mailing list using public. They in no way represent the email or > mailing list population in general. You don't need to use mutt to understand netiquette. IOW, many users exhibit good posting practice who don't use mutt at all. > Etiquette, or "netiquette" if you prefer, is basically the set of > rules of conduct, explicit or implicit, that are adopted and adhered > to by a population to establish norms of behavior. Don't confuse netiquette with a list's code of conduct. [...] You should have a read of: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1/ -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
