Lpc2000

people, could you please shrub off the quoted material of previous
posts? i tend to rush over this high-volume list and tag interesting
messages. then i save the lot in one go, but i have a lot of "noise"
because of excessive quoting.

i think this is part of what is called "netiquette".

regards,

  clemens

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, clemens fischer <ino-qc@...> wrote:
>
> people, could you please shrub off the quoted material of previous
> posts? i tend to rush over this high-volume list and tag interesting
> messages. then i save the lot in one go, but i have a lot of "noise"
> because of excessive quoting.
> 
> i think this is part of what is called "netiquette".
> 
> regards,
> 
>   clemens
>

The quoted material provides context.  I don't receive email from any
Yahoo group (by choice) and looking backwards in a thread is not
convenient from the web interface.

So, I appreciate a certain amount of context.  On the other hand, I
prefer to read top posting; I hate scrolling through the context to
find the answer if I am already familiar with the thread.  Others have
a different point of view.

I am not sure that 'netiquette' applies to this situation.  But I am
wrong more often than not...

Richard

rtstofer wrote:

>--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, clemens fischer <ino-qc@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>people, could you please shrub off the quoted material of previous
>>posts? i tend to rush over this high-volume list and tag interesting
>>messages. then i save the lot in one go, but i have a lot of "noise"
>>    
>>
>So, I appreciate a certain amount of context.  On the other hand, I
>prefer to read top posting; I hate scrolling through the context to
>find the answer if I am already familiar with the thread.  Others have
>a different point of view.
>
>  
>
That is not "correct", top-posting is out-of-context replying and 
difficult to figure out what you are specifically responding to.  Normal 
netiquette is to remove parts not pertinent to the context of your 
reply.  For example, someone writes a message with four topics / ideas 
expressed, you wish to comment on just one of them.  Netiquette is to 
remove the text of the other three topics, and generally, most of the 
topic text you are directing your comment to.

Their remaining text is to "jog their memory of what they said", then 
you place your comment below thier quoted text.  Context is good, 
excessive text is purely laziness.

This is not only good ettiquette, but it also clearly shows what you are 
commenting to.  Cluttering a message up with a lot of useless material 
(old text) just makes it harder for someone to figure out what, and 
where, you are commenting.  With proper formatting of relies, you can 
traverse a thread you are unfamiliar with and rapidly become acquanited 
with the topic thread.

This is the way it's been done on the net for the past 12, or so, years 
that I've been here...

Just an informed opinion,

TomW

-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------

I tend start with a "top-post" in this forum because of how the
"simple" view works on the web interface.

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Tom Walsh <tom@...> wrote:

> ... top-posting is out-of-context replying and 
> difficult to figure out what you are specifically responding to.

That is what I thought top-posting meant.  I know many who consider
text at the top as top-posting.

Bear in mind netiquette came about from the USENET days when postings
were through vanilla SMTP clients that deal only with plain text.

Many clients today have fancy "web view" capability and handle
proprietary formatted contents that make cutting original text
somewhat cumbersome.

I often receive responses where the respondent breaks original text
into parts, and responds to each part by way of annotation style
comments (as I like it to be) except ... respondent's email client
does not distinguish original text from the annotation!

Jaya

jayasooriah in <e0nanf+2adp@...>:

>  Bear in mind netiquette came about from the USENET days when postings
>  were through vanilla SMTP clients that deal only with plain text.

in the old days USENET was transported over UUCP, which changed to NNTP
over TCP/IP nowadays.  SMTP has nothing to do with it. the netiquette
has more to do with saving bandwidth: it's best to place a concise
statement on one screenful; this goes for every public forum whatever
protocol is used.

>  Many clients today have fancy "web view" capability and handle
>  proprietary formatted contents that make cutting original text
>  somewhat cumbersome.

ah, there's the problem! i'm not a fan of GUIs all that much, and you're
right: for the purpose of cleaning up, one has to mark superfluous lines
and hit DELETE or even use the menu.

>  I often receive responses where the respondent breaks original text
>  into parts, and responds to each part by way of annotation style
>  comments (as I like it to be) except ... respondent's email client
>  does not distinguish original text from the annotation!

yeah, i've seen this, too. doesn't even the window$ "standard"
mailreader have an option to prefix lines with the customary "> " ?

  clemens

clemens fischer schrieb:
> people, could you please shrub off the quoted material of previous
                                     ^ superfluous

> posts?

With the little extension I totally agree.
But this is kind of religous war between those who use USENET and email 
since the beginning and newcomers who think the internet == WWW.
But much of this is also related to (bad) user-software (Outlook, 
Thunderbird or whatever mail-client).


-- 
42Bastian