Repeated again?

Repeated again?

Post by EvAr » Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:00:00




I really think you must have misunderstood my message about the reposting
of messages it doesn't matter if it's at the start of the original message
or the end it is still there in its entirety and thats what my request was
for people to possibly try to reduce the repeats of ENTIRE messages.      
TES

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Jeri Harriso » Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:00:00


EvArt,

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.).  As I said
the first time I responded to this thread, I have no solution to your problem.  
Sorry.  

I simply think if a person is responding to a post, and they are going to include
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 I think
it would be a nice thing to do.

Jeri

Quote:


> I really think you must have misunderstood my message about the reposting
> of messages it doesn't matter if it's at the start of the original message
> or the end it is still there in its entirety and thats what my request was
> for people to possibly try to reduce the repeats of ENTIRE messages.
> TES


 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Narigo » Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

> 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
I
>think
>it would be a nice thing to do.

AOL software automatically puts highlighted text at the top of the reply.
Like mine is here.

Carol

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Jeanne A. E. DeVo » Wed, 30 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>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.)

Quote:
>I simply think if a person is responding to a post, and they are going to
include
>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
I think
>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

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Sm4h » Wed, 30 Oct 1996 04:00:00


It's true that AOL automatically inserts highlighted text at the top of
your reply, but all you have to do is move your cursor in front of the
inserted text, click and start typing, to move it to the end.  Like mine
is here.

Sharon M.


writes:

Quote:
>AOL software automatically puts highlighted text at the top of the reply.
>Like mine is here.

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by PolyArti » Wed, 30 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Carol...
   If you want it at the bottom, just re-position the cursor above it and
type.

Susan Lamb


writes:

Quote:
>> 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
>I
>>think
>>it would be a nice thing to do.

>AOL software automatically puts highlighted text at the top of the reply.
>Like mine is here.

>Carol

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Jacqueline Giko » Wed, 30 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Carol -
All mail quotes are done that way. A little effort on your
part would be to reposition your input indicator (move mouse
so that flashing line is at the tip of your mail :-\) to the
top of your window. Voila! your reply is at the top - as
mine is here. Magic? No. Merely a bit of common sense.

Jacqueline

Quote:



> > 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
> I
> >think
> >it would be a nice thing to do.

> AOL software automatically puts highlighted text at the top of the reply.
> Like mine is here.

> Carol

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Ulrika O'Brie » Thu, 31 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>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.).  As I said the first time I responded to this thread,=

 I have no >solution to your problem. Sorry.

*sigh*  I'm going to sound like an Evil Netcop here, and
I guess if I were a better writer, I would find a way to
put this more sweetly.  Since I'm not a better writer, I'll
just apologize in advance if my tone seems abrasive.  It's
not actually meant to.

Anyway, in most cases, there is a very simple solution to
the problem.  It's very rare that a poster *needs* to quote
an entire post in order to provide context -- usually a paragraph
or two, at *most*, contains what is being replied to.  So the
solution is to edit the quoted post down to just what you
really address, or just enough to give people an idea of
what the previous post was about.  Editing quoted posts down
to just the bare bones of what you're addressing is good
netiquette.  It's more polite to people who read offline.
Especially if all you're really doing is adding an "I agree"
sentiment -- all you need to do is give a short quote from
the post you're refering to, so that other readers can follow
the reference.

I think there may be quite a few people who post here who
aren't really that familiar with netiquette, or with their
newsreader software, and that they may be quoting full
posts out of ignorance, rather than any genuine need.  This
is not the crime of the century, but rudeness out of ignorance
is still rude.

--
"Criticism is the only known antidote to error." -- David Brin


 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by EvAr » Thu, 31 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Chuck,
I agree with you on most of this subject except that its the aol people
who repeat posts thinking its not sent my aol newsgroup tells me that my
message has been sent. I very much like the fact for me that the messages
I have already read are not goint to show up day after day after day
because I log off and read off line actually I print and read at my
convience.  I have Forte's Free agent on my windows menu and I don't use
it because you can't print but one message at a time and have to re-load
daily and then ort out stuff you've already read big waist of mt time.  So
there are good points for all of the services and to each his own.  It
seems to me that the messages that get posted sometimes 5 times in a row
are from the same people all the time and one person on the same day I
think it was wrote 2 or 3 messages LONG ones at that and then went on to
post them 5 or 6 times each right in a row.  That is what is so
frustrating to me.  Its like they have no faith in there computer and or
their ability to use it or something.  I'm not going to mention your names
you know who you are.  I never ment for this to get to the point that
people would start pointing fingers all I orginally asked was for the
people who repost entire messages to just repost the pertinate points they
wanted to comment on or really I think what I said was just consider it
think about it!           TES

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by DABla » Fri, 01 Nov 1996 04:00:00



writes:

Quote:
>AOL software automatically puts highlighted text at the top of the reply.

I'm just wondering if people are aware that you can easily restrict the
repeated portion of a reply by highlighting only the sentence or paragraph
that you want before hitting the "Reply to Group" icon?  It's really
simple.  (At least this is true on AOL.)  

If you want to respond to several non-consecutive points, highlight most
of the message or the whole thing, respond to the first point after it
occurs in the copied portion, delete the next paragraph or whatever,
respond to the next point, delete, etc.  Diane B.

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by mhawtho.. » Sat, 02 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Thanks for the info on how to do this... I hope this works!  Molly

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Narigo » Sat, 02 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Please, I've received several emails about this and several posts have
been made here telling me this same thing. I have plenty of common sense,
thanks, and I've been around ***space for a while. The common practice
is to quote small passages which you intend your reply to address, placing
your reply after the quote. I can hardly see why my post initiated such
concern, but I've got the message. And I'll probably continue to post the
way I and most others do everywhere else. After now, that is.

Carol


Quote:

>Carol -
>All mail quotes are done that way. A little effort on your
>part would be to reposition your input indicator (move mouse
>so that flashing line is at the tip of your mail :-\) to the
>top of your window. Voila! your reply is at the top - as
>mine is here. Magic? No. Merely a bit of common sense.

>Jacqueline

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Pauline Botelh » Sat, 02 Nov 1996 04:00:00


There was a thread about the "satisfaction" of returning 5 or more spam
messages back to originator.  Someone else said to just ignore them, and
I thought at the time how nice it would be to annoy them as much as we
get annoyed, however, the "just ignore them" turns out to be the best
advise IMHO, especially since my service provider just put out the
following, which would make replying to SPAM the same thing as SPAMMING
and cause ISP to cutoff service (I am passing along for general info):

"Illegal Spams:

(unsolicited E-mail transmission) to many of our customers. If you want
to respond to this message, please create a "new message". Do not "reply"
to this spam or you may be considered to be in violation of Erol's
Internet Access Agreement. By "replying" to this SPAM, you are sending
the same message, including addresses, plus your message, to everyone on
this list. (This would be considered an illegal SPAM.)"
Pauline
Alexandria, Va

 
 
 

Repeated again?

Post by Jeanne A. E. DeVo » Sat, 02 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>There was a thread about the "satisfaction" of returning 5 or more spam
>messages back to originator.  Someone else said to just ignore them, and
>I thought at the time how nice it would be to annoy them as much as we
>get annoyed, however, the "just ignore them" turns out to be the best
>advise IMHO, especially since my service provider just put out the
>following, which would make replying to SPAM the same thing as SPAMMING
>and cause ISP to cutoff service (I am passing along for general info):

I think you've misinterpreted this message from your provider. If the
spammer has included all the spammed addresses in the To or Cc line
(instead of the Bcc line, which is the usual procedure), then simply
hitting Reply on most mail software will cause your reply to be sent to,
not only the spammer who sent the mail, but everyone who received it as
well.

The Erol admins are cautioning you not to unthinkingly hit Reply to this
particular spam, in order to avoid this problem, but they're not saying you
can't complain to the spammer. I know of no ISP, no matter how bad (and
Erol is becoming widely known as a spammer haven) that considers simply
complaining to a spammer a breach of its terms of service.

It is remarkably clueless of them to call such an accidental mass-reply
"illegal spam", however.
--
  "Our greatest fear is that the Internet will become a vehicle
   of free distribution of information."
   - Ken Wasch, president of the Software Publishers Association