 | | Netiquette
|
| I just noticed something when I went to reply to a post here at Lugnet that doesn't match up with the way I use email on a daily basis at work and everywhere else. In other words, who decided that when replying, the "Proper Netiquette" is that (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) It is a fairly widespread standard on discussion newsgroups (as compared to email). (...) This is fairly common for email, esp. in business contexts where retaining a complete copy of the original, for reference, is desirable. For newsgroups, (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Netiquette
|
| Kevin, I can use the same arguments about chronology for top posting...but the MAIN ADVANTAGE to top posting allows the email to be previewed and/or read without having to open the entire email...or at least it does this for those of us that use an (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) Ummmmm thats not who is replying, it's who they're replying to. Or is that to whom they are replying? Stupid English. ROSCO (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) Usenet is different to email, since (due to crossposting and stuff) the original post might not be around anymore to read, so the post by itself needs to make sense. So it's normal that when replying, you type your reply below the piece of (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) Of course the news ettiquette is also to trim your quotes. If people took care to do this, the first point would more likely show up in previews. What I hate about the quoted article on the bottom is that people never trim them. They carry the (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) I don't think so; I find that claim a little silly, to be honest. Why do top-posters never *intersperse* their comments? Because it would pretty obviously be unpleasant to read, of course. And certainly not, either, for non-interspersed (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| |
