>You're wrong about me, I understood your message completely. Some people
>want to be able to refer to the entire original post (at least most of it.).
Then those people can use the References: line like the rest of us. There
really is no excuse for wasting other people's money by quoting an *entire*
message, unless for some reason the whole thing is relevant to your reply.
(Including the sig, forsooth.)
>I simply think if a person is responding to a post, and they are going to
>the original post, that it would help save a little time if they put it at the
>bottom of the post rather than at the top. It may not matter to you, but
>it would be a nice thing to do.
Not really. It's extremely frustrating to have to scroll all the way to the
end of the message to find what's after the quoted text, only to discover
that the poster has mindlessly quoted a multi-page article without adding
anything to the end...since, of course, you have to scan the entire article
to discover whether there's new commentary at the end or not. If anything,
it's worse than quoting the entire article at the beginning; at least in
that case, I know to skip to the next article after the first page or two
of solid verbatim quotation.
Overquoting is not considerate of your readers nor of the thousands of
systems that pay to send and store all that unnecessary text. Please avoid
it whenever possible.
"Our greatest fear is that the Internet will become a vehicle
of free distribution of information."
- Ken Wasch, president of the Software Publishers Association