Re: Unnecessary Bitch (WAS: Re: [cobalt-users] Symb. Link)

[Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I included the original message, all 5 lines of the damn thing (excuse me,
> 10 lines or so including the header - so sue me), in case someone wanted to
> know what the question was.  That's hardly 'against the rules' that I know
> of.

Hey man, I'm with you.

I don't even see the rest of the message in my message pane.  But on one
hand, Dom has a point... You really should have trimmed the 282 *Bytes* out
of that post.  Considering Dom's comment its self took about 85.

I can see it on some of the really lame situations where there is like 5
sigs at the bottom of the page, etc. But for the love of god, 282 bytes is
just ridiculous to even mention.

> And what's this 'reply after the quote' crap?  I know of past 'netiquette'
> posts that state you should post your reply *BEFORE* the original message
> (search the archives).  Makes sense to me since you don't want to have to
> scroll down a ongoing thread to see the latest reply, unless it'd be more
> appropriate to include your responses peppered throughout the original post,
> or if you have a lengthy response to a short post (this one for example).
> Then locating your reply after the original post, to allow the reader to
> grasp the gist of the thread, seems like a good idea (all of which I just
> said has been discussed in the past).

Typically the common etiquette nowadays is to write *after* the post so that
its easier to follow a thread.  It also makes it a lot easier to interject
comments such as I am doing.

It used to be post first, then quote but its pretty much gone the other way
(which I vastly prefer).

-k