X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,aaba0d0b6dc1b0b5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-02 14:24:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!h180n1fls34o1115.telia.COM!not-for-mail From: Veronica Karlsson Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: Re: ASCII Stuff Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:36:33 +0000 Lines: 106 Message-ID: <3EDBC361.71CF2DB@hotbrev.com> References: <1103_1053199699@news.kolumbus.fi> <3ec7046b$0$3540$626a54ce@news.free.fr> <1105_1053360226@news.kolumbus.fi> <3ED7994D.31F94B1F@hotbrev.com> <3ed7edaa$0$4585$626a54ce@news.free.fr> <3ED86D0F.545656B7@hotbrev.com> <3ed8b88a$0$11565$626a54ce@news.free.fr> <3EDB37E5.66D7292A@hotbrev.com> <3edb5ac6$0$26626$626a54ce@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: h180n1fls34o1115.telia.com (213.67.71.180) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054589048 9537084 213.67.71.180 (16 [58193]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (X11; I; Linux 2.2.22-6.2.3 i586) Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:23426 BoD wrote: > Veronica Karlsson wrote: > > BoD wrote: > > > > > Why? It certainly won't remove the need to scroll (because you still > > have to scroll past it to get to the next message). > > I'm not sure I understand. > When I want to read next message in thread I don't have to scroll > anything. In the news readers I'm familiar with you get the next message by "scrolling past the end" of the current message. > I agree but some have said that you cannot assume that the previous > message is actually here. That's right, you can't, which is why you should quote some text (but not all of it). > By the way the fact that it may be redundent is IMO not a problem: > with the current "average" bandwidth, an article being 50 lines > instead of 25 does not make a difference. It makes a difference in the "bandwidth" experienced by the human eye which has to sweep past those extra 25 lines. > > If it's not then > > a short quote should be enough to not lose the context. Most of the > > time there is no need to quote the entire thing. > > But sometimes you want to answer the whole article! I think we must be talking past each other somehow. Please, show some examples of "answering the whole article" (i.e. links to posts at Google or some similar service). > > If your response "carries its own > > context" (i.e. can be understood on its own) then, sure, go ahead, > > remove the quote. If it doesn't, then cut out everything except that > > little bit of it that you are responding to. If you are responding to > > more than one point, please do the "middle-posting" (normal) style. > > I'm lost. What do you recommend when I want to answer the whole article: > 1. don't quote anything, If your reply is a "complete article" of its own, which doesn't need anything from the previous one to make sense, sure. > 2. quote everything, at the end (top post) This is the one I don't like. It's confusing. > or 3. quote everything, at the beginning (bottom post) I don't like this one either. > Me I answer 1 or 2 but not 3. Then again it's just my opinion ;) Me I answer 4: quote relevant bits, not whole posts. > > >for example useragents become more and more 'intelligent', > > > > They do? > > I think some fundamental laws of the universe can explain this > way of the evolution... :) Who says such "evolution" has to be in the direction of "more intelligent"? All it says is that things change as time passes. > But for instance I'm sure you can find a newsreader that will "hide" > any quoted text if it is at the bottom of an article. > I can imagine you can even configure some to reformat articles and > to put bottom quoted text to the top of the article :) And that would be "intelligent"? **brrr** (that sort of features tend to make a mess of ascii art) > Me I use Outlook Express with OEQuoteFix, it has an option to hide > sigs. THAT can be intelligent (IF the sender has a correctly formed sig separator and if you are not interested in seeing sigs, sig collectors like me might not be as interested...) > > > bandwidth is less and less a problem, ...) > > > > Computer bandwidth maybe, but not "human bandwidth". Our eyes and > > brains and fingers still work the same way they did thousands of > > years ago. > > Not sure :) Humans do evolve! Yes, but not very quickly. A few thousand years don't make that much difference. -- ##### c ^ OO /\\\\ ##### | /|\ `^^^^^^^%-- '||` | \\\\ ####-[.]\ / \ " " \ ha ha ha dd /[.]-\\\| ### _| |_ \\| ### (_ http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/cgi/asciichat/ _)} == \ / A S C I I A R T C H A T # ||\