Re: BREVITYPLEASE

[Rebecca Merck <Rebecca -dot- Merck -at- ONESOFT -dot- COM>]

Sorry, my joke fell flat.

My point was exactly what you're saying -- I said it in two messages, to
force people to have to either a) misunderstand (which you did perfectly
and helped me out enormously -- thanks, John!) or b) have to clambor
around in the old messages trying to figure out what the heck was going
on.

I agree with you 100%, John.  :)  No hard feelings?

(NOTE:  I'm leaving his note intact below, so that everyone knows what
I'm talking about)

-Rebecca

-----Original Message-----
From: John Posada [mailto:john -at- tdandw -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 11:42 AM
To: Rebecca Merck
Cc: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: Re: BREVITYPLEASE


>
> ...search through the back messages to know what the heck came before.

That's not reasonable.

You want no quotes. I'm not on digest and I have high speed cable
download, so I want the whole message quoted. Are you right and I'm
wrong?

Obviously, the correct answer is somewhere between.

Those with consideration will only leave enough to place the response in
context. Besides being practical, it also avaids confusion. Howe many
times does someone post a response to a comment, only to find out that
the comment is not what was understood because there is no context.

Imagine if I had omitted the quote. You would see the message and wonder
What's "not reasonable"? Would you even be able to do a search and come
back with an accurate hit? It's not like only one unreasonable issue is
floating around at any one time.

However, just as everywhere else in life, not every has, or has time for
consideration.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=