X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,aaba0d0b6dc1b0b5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-02 07:10:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news3-1.free.fr!not-for-mail Reply-To: "BoD" From: "BoD" Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art 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> Subject: Re: ASCII Stuff Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:10:13 +0200 Organization: BoD inc. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Lines: 109 Message-ID: <3edb5ac6$0$26626$626a54ce@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Jun 2003 16:10:14 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.132.85.198 X-Trace: 1054563014 news3-1.free.fr 26626 195.132.85.198:2932 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:23417 Veronica Karlsson wrote: > BoD wrote: > > Veronica Karlsson wrote: > > > If article n+1 is a response to article n then it often does not > > > make sense if the reader has not already read article n (or has > > > not read it very recently). In email you can assume that the > > > reader has done that. On usenet you cannot. > > > > That's why article n can be included (as a reference) in the end of > > the message. > > 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. > If it's already > available in the group then it's completely redundant. I agree but some have said that you cannot assume that the previous message is actually here. It could be here on your local server but not on other servers. So it may be impossible to know if it's viewable, which may be a sufficient reason to include 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. > 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! > > Of course, if you want to answer to a particular idea of the > > article, you should quote it before your answer, and I think nobody > > disagrees with that... But then it's not bottom-posting it would be > > middle-posting or center-posting (?). > > Of course. (Who said anything about "bottom-posting"?) ok :) > > But if you want to answer the whole article, I say you should > > either not quote it at all, or quote it at the END so readers do > > not have to scroll down to read it. > > This is where I disagree with you. 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, 2. quote everything, at the end (top post) or 3. quote everything, at the beginning (bottom post) Me I answer 1 or 2 but not 3. Then again it's just my opinion ;) > > Now of course this may or may NOT be what netiquette says. But hey, > > some things have to evolve ;) And we must consider the new > > parameters (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... :) 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 :) Me I use Outlook Express with OEQuoteFix, it has an option to hide sigs. > > 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! > Example: these days many (most?) computers can show text > that's more > than 80 characters wide, but such text is not comfortable for the > human eye to read. It still makes sense to keep your text under 80 > columns, > not because of how computer screens looked 20 years ago but because of > how the human eye works. Agreed. > Also, when you put more "capacity" into a computer (or a freezer, or a > cupboard, or a drawer, ...) you tend to fill it up. Keeping messages > (or web pages or images) lean still helps. True :) BoD