GENMSC-L Archives

Archiver > GENMSC > 2001-07 > 0994690058


From: Robert Heiling <>
Subject: Re: Replying To A Message
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 07:47:38 -0700
References: <T3N17.4728$4B5.29155@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, <000b01c10875$04002a00$1e3f0ecf@ajb>, <3B49DDD8.65CADBC0@erols.com>


Singhals wrote:

> And, if I may point out the obvious -- when was the last time any
> of us opened a hard-copy, manila file folder at the office and
> found the OLDEST piece of paper on top? All official/business
> filing is done with the newest on top, so the not-yet-read info
> is easier to reach.

Apples & oranges.

> Scrolling down through four or five screens of varied length
> quoted lines to get to stuff I haven't yet read is borrring
> enough when I've got time on my hands. And when I don't have
> time on my hands, it's infuriating.

But what if you hadn't already read that stuff?<g>

Bob

> Cheryl
>
> A. John Birkholz wrote:
> >
> > Good morning Robert and fellow researchers,
> >
> > There is nothing in the original message that I posted with
> > subject line “Replying To A Message” to indicate that I was
> > responding to a previously posted message. I did not quote
> > from a posted message nor did I reference anyone by name
> > from a posted message.
> >
> > My original message was illustrating that replies to postings
> > which precede the original message are acceptible in this forum
> > and I referenced the "Basic newsgroup and mailing list
> > 'Netiquette' " as my authority for that point.
> >
> > My original message was intended to illustrate by example that
> > the “Subject: line describes the main point of your [my] message.”
> > and that I “Always 'sign' your [my] message with your [my] name
> > and your [my] preferred e-mail address.” also suggested by the
> > referenced “website”.
> >
> > for now,
> >
> > A. John Birkholz
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Heiling" <>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:48 AM
> > > As I sat here scratching my head trying to figure out what the above
> > [which is now down below]
> > > says and what it refers to (which can only be determined by clicking on
> > > the previous message in the thread), I visited the referenced website.
> > > Some text there, and I quote, says: "If you are responding to a message,
> > > either include the relevant part of the original message, or make sure
> > > you unambiguously refer to the original contents.". As the message that
> > > I'm responding to and which referenced that website didn't follow that
> > > advice, I wonder why that posting was made?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > "A. John Birkholz" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good day folks,
> > > >
> > > > There is one among our community who suggests that replies to
> > > > postings which precede the original message are a prerogative of
> > > > the new subscribers and the uninitiated only. The most current
> > > > "Basic newsgroup and mailing list 'Netiquette' " which can be
> > > > found at the URL
> > > > http://www.woodgate.org/FAQs/netiquette.html
> > > > or via anonymous FTP from
> > > > ftp://ftp.woodgate.org/FAQs/netiquette.txt
> > > >
> > > > suggests otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > for now,
> > > >
> > > > A. John Birkholz
> > > > 963 McIver Road
> > > > Great Falls, MT 59404


This thread: