I remember we had a concerted debate a year or so ago about posting etiquette. I think the consensus was (sensibly) that we don't need, in this friendly place, prescriptions, proscriptions and all manner of pedantic strictures to suppress our creativity. There is just one thing I'd like to raise, however.

In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other groups, I tend to hide read messages. As such, when posts come containing answer only, it's a right royal pain to find to what the hell they're replying. Unless I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I just junk them.

So, I'd ask that the one or two people that have been doing this keep at least a rism of the previous post. I can't believe I'm the only one who has this same reaction, so you're probably doing yourself at least as big a favour as you're doing me/us.

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Author: "Imperfect C++", Addison-Wesley, 2004
    (http://www.imperfectcplusplus.com)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
    (http://www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
Director, Synesis Software
    (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator
    (http://www.stlsoft.org)

Synesis Software Pty Ltd
P.O.Box 125
Waverley
New South Wales, 2024
Australia

-----------------------------------------------------

I agree.  lol

> In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other
> groups, I tend to hide read messages. As such, when posts come
> containing answer only, it's a right royal pain to find to what the hell
> they're replying. Unless I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I just
> junk them.

By the timing I guess that was addressed to me :) Sorry, I do usually include a quote..

OTOH, it is also annoying to have to scroll like 250 lines of quotes to see a line of reply, so that might be something to watch for as well..


xs0

In article <opsnapq5jmkcck4r@esi>, Vathix says...
>
>I agree.  lol

ROFL!

"xs0" <xs0@xs0.com> wrote in message news:d0j0k8$thu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other
>> groups, I tend to hide read messages. As such, when posts come
>> containing answer only, it's a right royal pain to find to what the
>> hell
>> they're replying. Unless I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I
>> just
>> junk them.
>
> By the timing I guess that was addressed to me :) Sorry, I do usually include a quote..

Could've been. I honestly don't know, and it wasn't meant as a personal go at anyone. Just a tip for increasing one's readership ... ;)

> OTOH, it is also annoying to have to scroll like 250 lines of quotes to see a line of reply, so that might be something to watch for as well..

Indeed. Something I am guilty of, along with many others. ;$

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d0ivh5$s78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other groups, I tend to hide read messages. As such, when posts come containing answer only, it's a right royal pain to find to what the hell they're replying. Unless I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I just junk them.
>
> So, I'd ask that the one or two people that have been doing this keep at least a rism of the previous post. I can't believe I'm the only one who has this same reaction, so you're probably doing yourself at least as big a favour as you're doing me/us.

On the other hand, when the posts eventually wind up in the 'archives' pages, long quotes tend to be annoying. So I was going to suggest less quoting <g>.

What newsreader are you using? Me, I use Outlook Express, which bolds unread messages. Makes it easy.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d0j77h$158t$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d0ivh5$s78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other
>> groups, I tend to hide read messages. As such, when posts come
>> containing answer only, it's a right royal pain to find to what the
>> hell
>> they're replying. Unless I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I
>> just
>> junk them.
>>
>> So, I'd ask that the one or two people that have been doing this keep
>> at
>> least a rism of the previous post. I can't believe I'm the only one
>> who
>> has this same reaction, so you're probably doing yourself at least as
>> big a favour as you're doing me/us.
>
> On the other hand, when the posts eventually wind up in the 'archives' pages, long quotes tend to be annoying. So I was going to suggest less quoting <g>.

Yes, less. Agreed. Just not nothing.

>
> What newsreader are you using? Me, I use Outlook Express, which bolds
> unread
> messages. Makes it easy.

Yes, I am using the same execrable filth. I've been planning to upgrade to something decent for years, but there's thing pesky thing called time ...

Matthew wrote:
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d0j77h$158t$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
>>news:d0ivh5$s78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other
>>>groups, I tend to hide read messages. As such, when posts come
>>>containing answer only, it's a right royal pain to find to what the hell
>>>they're replying. Unless I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I just
>>>junk them.
>>>
>>>So, I'd ask that the one or two people that have been doing this keep at
>>>least a rism of the previous post. I can't believe I'm the only one who
>>>has this same reaction, so you're probably doing yourself at least as
>>>big a favour as you're doing me/us.
>>
>>On the other hand, when the posts eventually wind up in the 'archives'
>>pages, long quotes tend to be annoying. So I was going to suggest less
>>quoting <g>.
> 
> 
> Yes, less. Agreed. Just not nothing.
> 
> 
>>What newsreader are you using? Me, I use Outlook Express, which bolds unread
>>messages. Makes it easy.
> 
> 
> Yes, I am using the same execrable filth. I've been planning to upgrade to something decent for years, but there's thing pesky thing called time ...
> 


I recommend you to try Thunderbird.  It takes a few minutes to set things up.

Matthew wrote:
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d0j77h$158t$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
>>news:d0ivh5$s78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>In order to manage the increasing volume of posts on this and other
>>>groups, I tend to hide read messages.
>>What newsreader are you using? Me, I use Outlook Express, which bolds unread
>>messages. Makes it easy.
> 
> Yes, I am using the same execrable filth. I've been planning to upgrade to something decent for years, but there's thing pesky thing called time 

Thunderbird, that's what I have on both Windows and Linux.

No hassle with install. Easy-beasy.

And while _YOU_BOTH_ are at it, get Firefox for surfing.

You'll get the time "wasted" back within a week, with interest.

Getting and installing them isn't much more work than getting Acrobat Reader, or Flash, etc. I'd be scared to death using OE, or IE.

Georg Wrede wrote:

> Thunderbird, that's what I have on both Windows and Linux.

And Mac OS X, too. (posting this, using Thunderbird)

> No hassle with install. Easy-beasy.

Even available in e.g. Swedish, for us foreigners...

--anders