K
Kadaitcha Man
Flightless Bird
"Mike Easter", thou piggy-eyed gull-catcher. Thou misshapen Dick. Ye
warned:
> Billabong wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> Top posting is undesirable. Untrimmed bottom posting is undesirable.
>>> Trim and context is optimal.
>
>> I thought that fiddling with people's messages is an awfull thing to
>> do, unpolite to say the least.
>
> When someone posts a message, *that* is /their/ message.
>
> When you /reply/ to someone's message, that is *your* message. It is
> your responsibility to cause your message to be responding *directly* to
> some particular line or lines in what they said. That way people know
> exactly what you are saying (about).
>
> You only want to keep some tiny fragment of someone else's message to
> serve as a 'key' or intro - introduction/ context/ lead in/ - to
> whatever your message is.
>
> When you reply to someone's message and your newsreader 'quotes' every
> single thing they said, including their sig in your newsreader's case,
> you need to remove almost everything which your newsreader has quoted.
>
> Save one line or part of one line if possible. If (absolutely)
> necessary, save a little bit more.
>
> While you are trimming, it will focus your 'gaze' on the exact words of
> their message to which you are getting ready to reply.
>
> That trimming and that 'gaze' will cause your reply to be especially
> responsive to the exact words to which you should reply just under an
> empty line under those exact words to which you are replying.
>
>> I will try to do that in the future.
>
> If you are not responding to one single line or so, but instead you are
> responding 'globally' to some big complicated concept which the other
> posting party has posted, then you should not quote anything of what
> they said before, because that is not sufficiently /succinct/ or to the
> point.
>
> Instead, you should delete *everything* they said, and then 'paraphrase'
> their message meaning as accurately as you can, by saying "So and so
> explained that Croatia's territory has been populated by Neanderthals,
> Greeks, Romans, and Avars before the Kingdom of Croatia in the 7th
> century."
Good God! You're a fucking maniacally obsessive control-freak, Easter,
you fucking certifiable netl0oN.
warned:
> Billabong wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> Top posting is undesirable. Untrimmed bottom posting is undesirable.
>>> Trim and context is optimal.
>
>> I thought that fiddling with people's messages is an awfull thing to
>> do, unpolite to say the least.
>
> When someone posts a message, *that* is /their/ message.
>
> When you /reply/ to someone's message, that is *your* message. It is
> your responsibility to cause your message to be responding *directly* to
> some particular line or lines in what they said. That way people know
> exactly what you are saying (about).
>
> You only want to keep some tiny fragment of someone else's message to
> serve as a 'key' or intro - introduction/ context/ lead in/ - to
> whatever your message is.
>
> When you reply to someone's message and your newsreader 'quotes' every
> single thing they said, including their sig in your newsreader's case,
> you need to remove almost everything which your newsreader has quoted.
>
> Save one line or part of one line if possible. If (absolutely)
> necessary, save a little bit more.
>
> While you are trimming, it will focus your 'gaze' on the exact words of
> their message to which you are getting ready to reply.
>
> That trimming and that 'gaze' will cause your reply to be especially
> responsive to the exact words to which you should reply just under an
> empty line under those exact words to which you are replying.
>
>> I will try to do that in the future.
>
> If you are not responding to one single line or so, but instead you are
> responding 'globally' to some big complicated concept which the other
> posting party has posted, then you should not quote anything of what
> they said before, because that is not sufficiently /succinct/ or to the
> point.
>
> Instead, you should delete *everything* they said, and then 'paraphrase'
> their message meaning as accurately as you can, by saying "So and so
> explained that Croatia's territory has been populated by Neanderthals,
> Greeks, Romans, and Avars before the Kingdom of Croatia in the 7th
> century."
Good God! You're a fucking maniacally obsessive control-freak, Easter,
you fucking certifiable netl0oN.
