Stefan Trethan wrote:
>>Any chance of bottom-posting your replies and trimming away all the stuff
>>you weren't replying to?
>>
>>I had to re-read the entire message you quoted to discover what you were
>>talking about!
>>
>
> Still i find it inconvenient and would like to see how the others think.
>
Ack, ignore it. No one was holding a gun up to their head to read the
message in the first place. My usual reply is a multiple choice: A. Take 15
seconds to set up and filter everything by my email into trash. B. If you chose
not to do this and read my messages then be quiet.
Usually anyone who writes this "I had to re-read the entire message" has
obsessive compulsive disease, shown from both the need to reread something that
they will likely never use anyway, and that they feel required to send you a
message to 'help clean up the internet' instead of having the good sense to skip
it and move on. And that's not counting the attention deficit disorder they
have if they just read that original and then had to reread it to understand
your post only a few hours later. Really they're likely slack and wanting you
to trim to just the line or two you're replying to so they don't have to read
the message in the first place, and saying they had to reread it was pure
fabrication. Plus they could stand to join the mid-90's and get a mouse with a
wheel, and learn to scan a message properly, that original simply wasn't long
enough to be complaining about. Same as with the 'you must edit all your
messages exactly for me to read in digest' people, the fault is on their side
not yours. Your only real job is as a text and ideas contributor, not as their
personal message editor.
Anyone worrying about such minor junk after the general discussion just
doesn't have enough real stuff to worry about, and likely could stand a tree to
fall on their car or house to knock them back to a better perspective.
Alan