A Little Rant

I don't know if things have changed in the group in this regard, or if
I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.

The purpose in quoting text is to allow one's response to be read in
context, and the immediate context is generally sufficient. I find it
irritating to download an 80-line post, only to find 78 lines of
quoted material and a few words of response.

As a result, I now tend to avoid the contributions of some people
here. Also, if I see nothing new on the first screen of a post, I
don't take the trouble to scroll down to read the words of somebody
who can't be arsed to snip a bit.

There. Rant over.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

"Padraig Breathnach" I don't know if things have changed in the group in
this regard, or if
I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.

Man, do I agree with you. It is tedious to scroll down 24 KB of the original
post only to see "I'm happy for you." at the bottom.

Pat in TX

Pat in TX wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" I don't know if things have changed in the group in
this regard, or if

I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.


Man, do I agree with you. It is tedious to scroll down 24 KB of the original
post only to see "I'm happy for you." at the bottom.

Pat in TX



Of course if you would only top post it wouldn't matter as much.

I think that it is also a result of broadband.

In any case it is nowhere as obnoxious as the folks who trim poorly and
leave it looking as though you said something that you did not.

Or even the idiots who snip everything and leave you searching back to
try to find what it is that they are talking about.

How interesting.
Anything else ?

"Padraig Breathnach" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
I don't know if things have changed in the group in this regard, or if
I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.

The purpose in quoting text is to allow one's response to be read in
context, and the immediate context is generally sufficient. I find it
irritating to download an 80-line post, only to find 78 lines of
quoted material and a few words of response.

As a result, I now tend to avoid the contributions of some people
here. Also, if I see nothing new on the first screen of a post, I
don't take the trouble to scroll down to read the words of somebody
who can't be arsed to snip a bit.

There. Rant over.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Do you bother to research all that ?
is it so important to knwo by all means what they were talking about ?


"Frank F. Matthews" a écrit dans le message
de news: ...


Pat in TX wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" I don't know if things have changed in the group
in this regard, or if

I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.


Man, do I agree with you. It is tedious to scroll down 24 KB of the
original post only to see "I'm happy for you." at the bottom.

Pat in TX

Of course if you would only top post it wouldn't matter as much.

I think that it is also a result of broadband.

In any case it is nowhere as obnoxious as the folks who trim poorly and
leave it looking as though you said something that you did not.

Or even the idiots who snip everything and leave you searching back to try
to find what it is that they are talking about.

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:30:04 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

I don't know if things have changed in the group in this regard, or if
I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.

The purpose in quoting text is to allow one's response to be read in
context, and the immediate context is generally sufficient. I find it
irritating to download an 80-line post, only to find 78 lines of
quoted material and a few words of response.

As a result, I now tend to avoid the contributions of some people
here. Also, if I see nothing new on the first screen of a post, I
don't take the trouble to scroll down to read the words of somebody
who can't be arsed to snip a bit.

I do exactly the same thing.

Aside from not trimming, I don't know why long exchanges between two
people should be posted at all. That's what email is for. When I see
that portions of a thread are basically a back-and-forth between two
people, I mark those portions as already read.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

"Miss L. Toe" wrote:

What do you think of people who double the post they are referencing and the
n have nothing more useful to add than to accuse you of spamming your new
website :-)

I didn't read it because of insufficient (or, perhaps, negative)
snipping and the absence of any new material on the first screen.

And the website is no longer new: it's been there a whole week now.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Following up to Padraig Breathnach

As a result, I now tend to avoid the contributions of some people
here. Also, if I see nothing new on the first screen of a post, I
don't take the trouble to scroll down to read the words of somebody
who can't be arsed to snip a bit.

Yes, I'm often too lazy to scroll down if I can see nothing but
quoted text in the message pane. With Agent its easy to
highlight the bit you want to reply to and click on reply.
But then Jay always complains I've snipped out his points.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:47:20 +0200, B wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:30:04 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

I don't know if things have changed in the group in this regard, or if
I have simply noticed it more of late -- the fact that a number of
contributors do not snip unnecessary material when they respond to a
post.

The purpose in quoting text is to allow one's response to be read in
context, and the immediate context is generally sufficient. I find it
irritating to download an 80-line post, only to find 78 lines of
quoted material and a few words of response.

As a result, I now tend to avoid the contributions of some people
here. Also, if I see nothing new on the first screen of a post, I
don't take the trouble to scroll down to read the words of somebody
who can't be arsed to snip a bit.

I do exactly the same thing.

Aside from not trimming, I don't know why long exchanges between two
people should be posted at all. That's what email is for. When I see
that portions of a thread are basically a back-and-forth between two
people, I mark those portions as already read.

I just ignore them. Rarely do they lead to anything interesting,
unless they start bickering....
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Following up to The Reid :

But then Jay always complains I've snipped out his points.

That's because there're never any points in there to quote.
--
Tim C.