 | | Re: Netiquette —Kevin Johnston
|
| | | (...) 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 —Ray Silva
|
| | | | 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 —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Kevin Johnston
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
