Re: Does TB have a jrefs.js file (Win7)?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
105 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
On 10/14/11   PDT 5:08 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> All that can seriously impact the time of the person doing a lot of
> support. Not only that, it can lengthen the time it takes to get a
> usable resolution.
> The previous custom of not trimming didn't just happen. It evolved over
> a long period of time, and served well.

Yes, quite right. And even today, if the discussion is long and involved
with specific technical details, trimming is to be avoided.

But when was the last time such a thread existed?

I've done at least my share of support, and since I've read the thread
from the beginning, I don't need it all regurgitated anyhow.

In the days of 300 baud transmission, one could simply d/l the last post
of a thread to not have to wait (or pay for ) the rest to d/l and take
off from there. Those days are also long gone.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 10/14/11   PDT 4:19 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 10/14/2011 2:24 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 10/14/2011 4:03 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> The quickest
>>
>> So, I trimmed your message. Now HOW does this make it clearer?
>> Ludicrous idea.
>> If one trims too much, or misunderstands the intent, and trims to leave
>> out the necessary content, then it only leads to confusion. Saying
>> 'less is more' doesn't make it true.
>>
>
> Once again trying to justify the way you do things, and won't change
> regardless.

Huh! Reminds me of a guy who always posts an incorrect ending to his
posts, keeping his name above the sig delimiter......

--
YMMV

Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 10/15/11   PDT 2:11 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 10/15/2011 1:58 AM, Otto Wyss wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2011 2:21 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> I find it a lot more annoying when someone cuts important information
>>>> from a post, especially if it is MY post, leaving ME looking like I
>>>> don't know what's going on. I have enough 'senior moments' without
>>>> someone helping me confuse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you care? You filter your own posts anyway!
>>>
>> I don't care, I simply don't read untrimmed messages. Why shouldn't I
>> filter my own posts? I know what I've written. Besides I guess you don't
>> have understand what trimming messages means.
>>
> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't have
> to look a couple of inches down on your screen. NOT going there.

Ron-

It's this: If you spend one-two seconds to trim, it saves each reader a
second or a fraction of a second. Net: we all benefit, even you, if
others return the favor. (as many do all ready.) I see it as a matter of
courtesy.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 10/14/11   PDT 4:18 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 10/14/2011 11:35 AM On a whim, Otto Wyss pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>> Myself, I love replies that are well trimmed, but not everyone here
>>> agrees— or can't be arsed to do so.
>>>
>> It's really annoying to have first scroll down to read a sentence or
>> two. I've
>> stopped reading these and the following messages when people can't
>> trimm down
>> their replies.
>
> Ron Hunter is one of the worst offenders. 100 lines of text and at the
> bottom he types, "no".

C'mon, Terry; you have made your point long ago. This is stalking, and
is rude, crude and socially unacceptable.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
On 10/15/2011 12:03 PM, John McWilliams wrote:

> On 10/15/11 PDT 2:11 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/15/2011 1:58 AM, Otto Wyss wrote:
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2011 2:21 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> I find it a lot more annoying when someone cuts important information
>>>>> from a post, especially if it is MY post, leaving ME looking like I
>>>>> don't know what's going on. I have enough 'senior moments' without
>>>>> someone helping me confuse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you care? You filter your own posts anyway!
>>>>
>>> I don't care, I simply don't read untrimmed messages. Why shouldn't I
>>> filter my own posts? I know what I've written. Besides I guess you don't
>>> have understand what trimming messages means.
>>>
>> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
>> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't have
>> to look a couple of inches down on your screen. NOT going there.
>
> Ron-
>
> It's this: If you spend one-two seconds to trim, it saves each reader a
> second or a fraction of a second. Net: we all benefit, even you, if
> others return the favor. (as many do all ready.) I see it as a matter of
> courtesy.
>
>
Well, my time is worth more than that, I guess.  Taking that much extra
time per message would result in running out of time to answer messages.
  For one thing, I would have to read through the whole post, rather
than just the last part as many users don't trim.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
On 10/15/2011 12:05 PM, John McWilliams wrote:

> On 10/14/11 PDT 4:18 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 10/14/2011 11:35 AM On a whim, Otto Wyss pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>
>>>> Myself, I love replies that are well trimmed, but not everyone here
>>>> agrees— or can't be arsed to do so.
>>>>
>>> It's really annoying to have first scroll down to read a sentence or
>>> two. I've
>>> stopped reading these and the following messages when people can't
>>> trimm down
>>> their replies.
>>
>> Ron Hunter is one of the worst offenders. 100 lines of text and at the
>> bottom he types, "no".
>
> C'mon, Terry; you have made your point long ago. This is stalking, and
> is rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
>
My answers are rarely that brief.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:

>> It's this: If you spend one-two seconds to trim, it saves each reader a
>> second or a fraction of a second.

First, it takes more than 1-2 seconds to trim. Second, it would take Ron
a lot longer in the beginning because he is not accustomed to proper
trimming. Third, and related to 1&2, trimming is more than simply
trimming, it also involves careful selection of what not to trim.

Fourth; Your/John's post wasn't properly trimmed (anyway), so its
'encouragement' to Ron to trim is somewhat hollow and hypocritical.

> Well, my time is worth more than that, I guess.

Actually, in an 'all men are created equal' world, your time isn't any
more valuable than anyone else's, including the people who have to trim
for you.

> Taking that much extra time per message would result in running out
> of time to answer messages.

It would definitely take you more time per message to trim properly.

> For one thing, I would have to read through the whole post, rather than
> just the last part as many users don't trim.

Ha!  That last sentence emphasizes an important element of the
importance for everyone to trim properly.

If you are only going to be reading the bottom without context, the
nontrimming bottom posters might as well be top posting.

The strongest arguments the top posters have in favor of their style is
that it is superior to untrimmed bottom posting because it saves the
problem of having to scoot down to the bottom to read the
non-contextualize untrimmed reply.

Trimmers realize that the opposite of top posting isn't where you put
your remarks, it is the process of contextualizing which involves
careful selection and then trimming. Neither the top posters nor the
non-trimming bottom posters know anything about that.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

The Real Bev
On 10/15/2011 01:26 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>  John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>  It's this: If you spend one-two seconds to trim, it saves each reader a
>>>  second or a fraction of a second.
>
> First, it takes more than 1-2 seconds to trim. Second, it would take Ron
> a lot longer in the beginning because he is not accustomed to proper
> trimming. Third, and related to 1&2, trimming is more than simply
> trimming, it also involves careful selection of what not to trim.

Indeed.  That's why it's sort of an IQ test.

> Fourth; Your/John's post wasn't properly trimmed (anyway), so its
> 'encouragement' to Ron to trim is somewhat hollow and hypocritical.
>
>>  Well, my time is worth more than that, I guess.

I regard improving the world as time well spent.  Besides, it's not like
anybody is paying me to do anything else with it.

> Actually, in an 'all men are created equal' world, your time isn't any
> more valuable than anyone else's, including the people who have to trim
> for you.
>
>>  Taking that much extra time per message would result in running out
>>  of time to answer messages.

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a clock running.  How much time is
allowed per post?  What happens if we exceed our allotment?

> It would definitely take you more time per message to trim properly.
>
>>  For one thing, I would have to read through the whole post, rather than
>>  just the last part as many users don't trim.

It is, therefore, our duty to tidy up the mess they leave behind.  It's
a nasty job, but someone has to do it.

> Ha!  That last sentence emphasizes an important element of the
> importance for everyone to trim properly.
>
> If you are only going to be reading the bottom without context, the
> nontrimming bottom posters might as well be top posting.
>
> The strongest arguments the top posters have in favor of their style is
> that it is superior to untrimmed bottom posting because it saves the
> problem of having to scoot down to the bottom to read the
> non-contextualize untrimmed reply.

It's good to shoot a person dead because it works so much faster than
just wounding him.  Corollary:  full-auto is better than single-shot
because it saves wear and tear on the trigger finger.

> Trimmers realize that the opposite of top posting isn't where you put
> your remarks, it is the process of contextualizing which involves
> careful selection and then trimming. Neither the top posters nor the
> non-trimming bottom posters know anything about that.

Which is why those of us who do it the PROPER way can feel so superior
to the great unwashed who can't be bothered to keep things tidy.

FIE!

--
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"I'm sorry I ever invented the Electoral College."
                                 Al Gore 11/08/00
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 10/15/2011 3:26 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

>
>> For one thing, I would have to read through the whole post, rather
>> than just the last part as many users don't trim.
>
> Ha!  That last sentence emphasizes an important element of the
> importance for everyone to trim properly.
>
> If you are only going to be reading the bottom without context, the
> nontrimming bottom posters might as well be top posting.
>
> The strongest arguments the top posters have in favor of their style is
> that it is superior to untrimmed bottom posting because it saves the
> problem of having to scoot down to the bottom to read the
> non-contextualize untrimmed reply.
>
> Trimmers realize that the opposite of top posting isn't where you put
> your remarks, it is the process of contextualizing which involves
> careful selection and then trimming. Neither the top posters nor the
> non-trimming bottom posters know anything about that.
>
Well, I only have to click one button on my trackball to get to the
bottom, so that really isn't a factor here.  It's not too hard to trim
if one intends to cover only one point of the previous post, but then
the thread is hacked apart for those who might want to comment on an
earlier part of the post.  Another argument against trimming.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by The Real Bev
On 10/15/2011 4:04 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> On 10/15/2011 01:26 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>> It's this: If you spend one-two seconds to trim, it saves each reader a
>>>> second or a fraction of a second.
>>
>> First, it takes more than 1-2 seconds to trim. Second, it would take Ron
>> a lot longer in the beginning because he is not accustomed to proper
>> trimming. Third, and related to 1&2, trimming is more than simply
>> trimming, it also involves careful selection of what not to trim.
>
> Indeed. That's why it's sort of an IQ test.
>
>> Fourth; Your/John's post wasn't properly trimmed (anyway), so its
>> 'encouragement' to Ron to trim is somewhat hollow and hypocritical.
>>
>>> Well, my time is worth more than that, I guess.
>
> I regard improving the world as time well spent. Besides, it's not like
> anybody is paying me to do anything else with it.
>
>> Actually, in an 'all men are created equal' world, your time isn't any
>> more valuable than anyone else's, including the people who have to trim
>> for you.
>>
>>> Taking that much extra time per message would result in running out
>>> of time to answer messages.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a clock running. How much time is
> allowed per post? What happens if we exceed our allotment?
>

Well, if I run out to time for reading and posting, then I don't get
through all the messages/groups I read, or I miss getting something else
done.

>> It would definitely take you more time per message to trim properly.
>>
>>> For one thing, I would have to read through the whole post, rather than
>>> just the last part as many users don't trim.
>
> It is, therefore, our duty to tidy up the mess they leave behind. It's a
> nasty job, but someone has to do it.
>

At least it is possible to clean up after us non-trimmers.  You can't
clean up the post if too much is trimmed.


>> Ha! That last sentence emphasizes an important element of the
>> importance for everyone to trim properly.
>>
>> If you are only going to be reading the bottom without context, the
>> nontrimming bottom posters might as well be top posting.
>>
>> The strongest arguments the top posters have in favor of their style is
>> that it is superior to untrimmed bottom posting because it saves the
>> problem of having to scoot down to the bottom to read the
>> non-contextualize untrimmed reply.
>
> It's good to shoot a person dead because it works so much faster than
> just wounding him. Corollary: full-auto is better than single-shot
> because it saves wear and tear on the trigger finger.
>

It depends on the situation.  If someone has been pursuing you, and
taking shots at you, then killing is better since that puts an end to
it.  Wounding is better in a war since several people then have to tend
to the wounded person.


>> Trimmers realize that the opposite of top posting isn't where you put
>> your remarks, it is the process of contextualizing which involves
>> careful selection and then trimming. Neither the top posters nor the
>> non-trimming bottom posters know anything about that.
>
> Which is why those of us who do it the PROPER way can feel so superior
> to the great unwashed who can't be bothered to keep things tidy.
>
> FIE!
>
I consider being able to read the entire thread in one message to be
much 'tidier'.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Mike Easter-2
Ron Hunter wrote:

> I consider being able to read the entire thread in one message to be
> much 'tidier'.

Whetheer you post the 1st reply to the OP or the 3,456th, you should
consider that your message is not the end of the thread.

By your logic, all 3456 messages would be accumulated in your reply (if
we had the unfortunate circumstance of _everyone_ being a untrimmed
bottom poster).

It often appears to me that the top posters think that the comment that
they place at the 'top of everything' is the last (and most important)
word on the subject.

There /are/ some important difference between top and untrimmed bottom
posting, but both suffer from a great similarity, they lack properly
focused context.

And, someone eventually has to clean up for them, and the sooner the better.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Joy Beeson
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:11:48 -0500, Ron Hunter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't have
> to look a couple of inches down on your screen.  NOT going there.

If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Mike Easter-2
Joy Beeson wrote:
> Ron Hunter

>> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
>> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't have
>> to look a couple of inches down on your screen.  NOT going there.
>
> If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

For me, it is more like 'if you don't have time...' (or the motivation
or the interest in my being able to immediately tell what part of what
has been posted before) '...to _trim_ it, then I don't have the time'
(or the interest or the motivation to compensate for your disinterest in
my perception of whatever you are going to say eventually somewhere down
there) '..to scroll...' (while checking to be sure that there aren't
some interleaved remarks in the mess of quoted material you left behind
for absolutely no good reason) '... down to the bottom of there to see
whatever it was you said.'

Consequently, very often when I open a reply message and immediately see
nothing but quoted material and a scroll bar off the the right, I just
keep right on going and don't even bother with going down to the bottom.

Not only is it more trouble to find the remark down there, but it is
also more trouble to interpret it, since it might be replying to
something or other quoted way way up yonder, or it might not be replying
directly to anything, but instead alluding vaguely instead of
specifically to something that was said sometime before.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

goodwin-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 10/15/2011 02:15 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:


> It's not too hard to trim if one intends to cover only one point of the
> previous post

ok

> but then the thread is hacked apart for those who might
> want to comment on an earlier part of the post.  Another argument
> against trimming.

no, that sentence makes no sense - if someone wants to comment on some
other part not quoted, said someone will reply to the post they are
referring to - if something /isn't/ in your trimmed post, it can't be
replied to.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Joy Beeson
On 10/15/2011 6:05 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:11:48 -0500, Ron Hunter<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
>> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't have
>> to look a couple of inches down on your screen.  NOT going there.
>
> If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

I do bother to write messages, but I don't spend time editing what
others wrote.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 10/15/2011 7:15 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Joy Beeson wrote:
>> Ron Hunter
>
>>> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
>>> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't
>>> have to look a couple of inches down on your screen. NOT going there.
>>
>> If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.
>
> For me, it is more like 'if you don't have time...' (or the motivation
> or the interest in my being able to immediately tell what part of what
> has been posted before) '...to _trim_ it, then I don't have the time'
> (or the interest or the motivation to compensate for your disinterest in
> my perception of whatever you are going to say eventually somewhere down
> there) '..to scroll...' (while checking to be sure that there aren't
> some interleaved remarks in the mess of quoted material you left behind
> for absolutely no good reason) '... down to the bottom of there to see
> whatever it was you said.'
>
> Consequently, very often when I open a reply message and immediately see
> nothing but quoted material and a scroll bar off the the right, I just
> keep right on going and don't even bother with going down to the bottom.
>
> Not only is it more trouble to find the remark down there, but it is
> also more trouble to interpret it, since it might be replying to
> something or other quoted way way up yonder, or it might not be replying
> directly to anything, but instead alluding vaguely instead of
> specifically to something that was said sometime before.
>
>
No problem.  Read what you want to read.  Skip the rest.  Doesn't hurt
my feelings.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

James Silverton-2
In reply to this post by goodwin-4
On 10/15/2011 8:17 PM, goodwin wrote:

> On 10/15/2011 02:15 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>> It's not too hard to trim if one intends to cover only one point of the
>> previous post
>
> ok
>
>> but then the thread is hacked apart for those who might
>> want to comment on an earlier part of the post. Another argument
>> against trimming.
>
> no, that sentence makes no sense - if someone wants to comment on some
> other part not quoted, said someone will reply to the post they are
> referring to - if something /isn't/ in your trimmed post, it can't be
> replied to.
>
Another pet peeve is the person who posts a reply referring to the
previous poster as just "he" or "she" without bothering to find and use
their name.

--
Jim Silverton,
Potomac, MD.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Mike Easter-2
James Silverton wrote:

> Another pet peeve is the person who posts a reply referring to the
> previous poster as just "he" or "she" without bothering to find and use
> their name.

Yes, but it isn't very hard to refer to you by your handle as James or
JS given that there is an attribution line to aid the resolution of
initials, but some people choose to use multipart or multisyllabic
handles, or even no handles which results in their attribution to be
something like Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. or [hidden email] or
[hidden email] -- so then one needs to come up with some
decipherable 'imaginary' construct such as LFSJ or g2b or g.v. or some such.

Not only that, but given that we don't have a gender apparent for g.v.
or g2b, then we have to use gender neutral pronouns when we say s/he
within the same sentence as the manufactured initialization.

Whereas we can say something about James or JS and then say further in
the same sentence that 'he' said something because you use a convenient
handle which is also gender apparent.

--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gone too far (was:- Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....])

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
Mike Easter wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>

<Snip>

>
> And, someone eventually has to clean up for them, and the sooner the
> better.
>
>

Until someone cleans up too much, then no-one has a clue whats going on,
or they have to re-read the other stuff!

--
Daniel
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Stanimir Stamenkov-3
Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:12:21 +1100, /Daniel/:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> And, someone eventually has to clean up for them, and the sooner the
>> better.
>
> Until someone cleans up too much, then no-one has a clue whats going
> on, or they have to re-read the other stuff!

One should read all of the other stuff, anyway - the conversation is
not really linear and one should read what others have replied
already, in order to not post duplicate and superfluous stuff
already discussed, clarified and answered in other branches of a
thread.  The habit of not reading the entire thread (with all its
branches) before replying is easily encouraged by the full quoting
practice.  The full quoting often doesn't make one read all of it
and just degrades the quality of the conversation, in my opinion.

--
Stanimir
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
123456