Re: Replies to Replies to Replies

wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/20/2011 01:00:10 PM:

----- Message from Kurt Anderson <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:57:38 -0500 -----

To:

Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client
for System i & iSeries <wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:

Re: [WDSCI-L] Replies to Replies to Replies .......

I like having all the responses within the email so I can reference
what was said earlier, and quickly.

I don't agree Kurt. I'm sorry you probably won't read this. If you ever
read the monthly guidelines, we're not supposed to leave in anything but
the relevant text from the original post.

What I don't like is when the
person's response is hidden within those earlier messages.
Sometimes it's quite clear and apparent, otherwise I can't
distinguish between the 'in-line' response and a quoted message.
Likely due to Outlook's formatting. Unless the response is to
specifically to me and I feel I should attempt to decipher the
response, I pretty much always delete 'in-line' responses w/o reading

them.

-Kurt

I agree it's my responsibility to make it clear what was the original post
and what's my response. That's why I tell my Lotus Notes client to
respond in such as way that it clearly marks the previous text.

Proper etiquette in many mail lists is to "bottom post" or "in-line post"
your responses. Those who don't receive the list in digest format will
have the specific context to which you're replying. "Top posting" is
considered bad form and periodically receives a tongue-lashing (I guess
that's a figure of speech, but I wouldn't call it a "flame") from other
subscribers of the mailing list.

That said, I generally "top post" in this list because it follows the
convention of most subscribers. But I'm definitely with Richard, leaving
_all_ the previous text from other responses drives me nuts.