[Scottish] Re: News Letter April 08

[Kyle Gordon]

tldr

John Seago wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2008 12:15:07 Kyle Gordon <kyle at lodge.glasgownet.com> 
> wrote: 
>   
>> Top posting worked just fine in that context due to the reply not
>> addressing any part of the post in particular.
>>
>>     
> To criticise the volume of the original post, (as posted in the digest), and 
> then to include the original post in its entirety, seems somewhat perverse, 
> would you not agree? Perhaps the suggestion that "it might be an idea to have 
> a digest / list of contents at the  top of such mail-outs", would have 
> sufficed.
>   
>> The part that you quote isn't even in the email that Andrew replied to, and
>> is only present in the digest version that you subscribe to.
>>
>>     
> Here is the material written by Andrew Back in the Email to the Scottish list  
>   
>> I can only speak for myself here, but must say that whilst curious as to 
>> what you guys had organised, I started to lose the will to live as I paged 
>> down. So it might be an idea to have a digest / list of contents at the 
>> top of such mail-outs. So that folks can quickly see if there is 
>> anything that is of interest to them and then read on if so. The 
>> voluminous monolithic blocks of text approach I find a bit overbearing!
>>
>>     
> I quoted only the last sentence of the paragraph, I cannot see any difference 
> between the post, (threaded), to the Scottish list, and the post to the 
> Digest of the Scottish list. Might it be that you are referring to the 
> subject line?
>
> The point remains that complaints that "voluminous monolithic blocks of text" 
> are found to be overbearing, and that they further cause a loss of will to 
> live, lose their impact when made above, "voluminous monolithic blocks of 
> text". Or could it be that Andrew Back, whilst intending to edit the material 
> he was replying to, forgot to do so? Mayhap he will enlighten us. As to the 
> differences between the threaded list and the digest, one takes that that 
> meets ones needs. 
>
> Whilst the following apply more to usenet  
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
> they might perhaps be considered as examples of 'good practice' as editing 
> quoted material does prevent successive posts getting longer and longer when 
> the entirety of each previous post is quoted, would you not agree? 
>   
>