OT: Could We Please Learn to Trim Our Posts? <rant>

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

<rant on>

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts? This means deleting enough
of the post to which we're replying to keep the meaning of the
original post. It means deleting anything that isn't on point to our
reply. It means not quoting 97 lines of a post with "Me, too!" or some
such.

Quoted message said:

<rant off>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

I'm to the point where if I am busy and don't have time to read anything I'll
just delete any post that I have to scroll to find.

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:19:02 GMT, The Bubbo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

<rant on>

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts? This means deleting enough
of the post to which we're replying to keep the meaning of the
original post. It means deleting anything that isn't on point to our
reply. It means not quoting 97 lines of a post with "Me, too!" or some
such.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<rant off>

Quoted message said:

I'm to the point where if I am busy and don't have time to read anything I'll
just delete any post that I have to scroll to find.

She says after quoting the entire post, including sig material (which
I have elided to avoid accusations of hypocrisy).

We must be ever vigilant of ourselves when we assume to chastise
others.

BTW, I agree your intended point.

Mark Johanssen said:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:19:02 GMT, The Bubbo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm to the point where if I am busy and don't have time to read anything I'll
just delete any post that I have to scroll to find.

She says after quoting the entire post, including sig material (which
I have elided to avoid accusations of hypocrisy).

We must be ever vigilant of ourselves when we assume to chastise
others.

BTW, I agree your intended point.

To be fair, the OP puts the cutesy quote, plus her actual signature,
BEFORE the -- sig delimiter, which causes it all to be included
in the quoted response.

But I completely agree with your intended point.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Mark Johanssen said:

Quoted message said:

I'm to the point where if I am busy and don't have time to read anything

I'll

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just delete any post that I have to scroll to find.

She says after quoting the entire post, including sig material (which
I have elided to avoid accusations of hypocrisy).

We must be ever vigilant of ourselves when we assume to chastise
others.

BTW, I agree your intended point.

dude, totally cut a whole paragraph out of the original post.
I feel wonky cutting sigs from the person I am responding to. I don't know
why, I just really don't like to cut them.

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

Is this better...???

--
Best
Greg

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

I'm a long time Usenetizen and poster in RFC and this is just getting
worse and worse. We're not as concerned about bandwidth as we used to
be, but scrolling through dozens of lines of untrimmed posts is just
tiresome.

I noticed that recently, too. When I open a post that has nothing but
old headers and quotes from 7 posts ago I just skip it and don't bother
reading it. It's probably the way the user's newsreader is configured.

Quoted message said:

Almost makes top posting almost seem reasonable.

Woah woah hey, let's not get carried away here!

Stacia

The Bubbo said:

dude, totally cut a whole paragraph out of the original post.
I feel wonky cutting sigs from the person I am responding to. I don't know
why, I just really don't like to cut them.

I always cut the sig and anything that really doesn't need to be added
in my reply to a post. It's just my humble opinion, but I don't think
a sig adds anything to the subject being discussed.

itsjoannotjoann said:

The Bubbo said:

dude, totally cut a whole paragraph out of the original post.
I feel wonky cutting sigs from the person I am responding to. I don't know
why, I just really don't like to cut them.

I always cut the sig and anything that really doesn't need to be added
in my reply to a post. It's just my humble opinion, but I don't think
a sig adds anything to the subject being discussed.

no, i know you're right. It's just a wonky thing in my head.

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

Reg said:

Mark Johanssen said:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:19:02 GMT, The Bubbo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm to the point where if I am busy and don't have time to read anything I'll
just delete any post that I have to scroll to find.

She says after quoting the entire post, including sig material (which
I have elided to avoid accusations of hypocrisy).

We must be ever vigilant of ourselves when we assume to chastise
others.

BTW, I agree your intended point.

Quoted message said:

To be fair, the OP puts the cutesy quote, plus her actual signature,
BEFORE the -- sig delimiter, which causes it all to be included
in the quoted response.

Which can be easily deleted.

But I completely agree with your intended point.

On 25 Jan 2006 19:56:01 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

When it comes to your posts, I sometimes think the above is better...

Yes, thank you!

:-)

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

Mark J said:

"Greg M" wrote:

[...]

When it comes to your posts, I sometimes think the above is better...

You think? Trim your stupid dangling comma, or is that widdle dingus
your peepee... and trim that extra double space too. I already trimmed
the attributions, why can't everyone.

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

be, but scrolling through dozens of lines of untrimmed posts is just
tiresome.

You're wasting you fingertips on this one, Terry. I've solved the
problem by ignoring all articles longer than 35-40 lines, regardless
of who wrote them. Besides, most of the people who steadfastly refuse
to trim and let their posts pile up usually have nothing to say.

nb

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

<rant on>

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts?

I promise to do better at trimming posts if you will trim your
godawfully long .sig. :-)

serene

<rant on>

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts? This means deleting enough
of the post to which we're replying to keep the meaning of the
original post. It means deleting anything that isn't on point to our
reply. It means not quoting 97 lines of a post with "Me, too!" or some
such.

I'm a long time Usenetizen and poster in RFC and this is just getting
worse and worse. We're not as concerned about bandwidth as we used to
be, but scrolling through dozens of lines of untrimmed posts is just
tiresome. Almost makes top posting almost seem reasonable.

<rant off>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

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

No.

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts?

Depends on the post IMHO. I try to trim (purely for my own convenience)
but sometimes one loses the whole point if one gets too "snippy". But on
the whole I don't think this bunch is too bad.... other NG's are worse.

--
Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

Mark Johanssen said:

On 25 Jan 2006 19:56:01 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

When it comes to your posts, I sometimes think the above is better...

Bl[...]w me...

--
Best
Greg

Apologies upfront. I've been singing this song for 10 years now:

This is why the *proper* posting protocol is to top post.

Whoever started Usenet and started this bottom posting protocol was wrong.

This is why.

Posts are for reference and should be at the bottom - like all references.
If you don't need the reference, you don't have to deal with it.

Top posting is neat and clean and nobody has to scroll.

While I'm at it, .sig files are supposed to be a maxium of 4 lines
including name and any "blank" lines you insert as a divider. I don't
care, but it just adds to the clutter. So, if anyone is going to trim,
start there.

Hasn't anybody ever read Netiquette?

Ok, ok. maybe it's like the Bible and it isn't true because it doesn't
exist. <wink>

Elaine, too

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

<rant on>

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts? This means deleting enough
of the post to which we're replying to keep the meaning of the
original post. It means deleting anything that isn't on point to our
reply. It means not quoting 97 lines of a post with "Me, too!" or some
such.

I'm a long time Usenetizen and poster in RFC and this is just getting
worse and worse. We're not as concerned about bandwidth as we used to
be, but scrolling through dozens of lines of untrimmed posts is just
tiresome. Almost makes top posting almost seem reasonable.

<rant off>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Sig lines should also be preceded by a line containing "--" in the first
two positions in order to trigger newsgreaders to skip them in replies.

Wayne

On Thu 26 Jan 2006 01:59:35a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Elaine
Parrish?

Quoted message said:

Apologies upfront. I've been singing this song for 10 years now:

This is why the *proper* posting protocol is to top post.

Whoever started Usenet and started this bottom posting protocol was
wrong.

This is why.

Posts are for reference and should be at the bottom - like all
references. If you don't need the reference, you don't have to deal with
it.

Top posting is neat and clean and nobody has to scroll.

While I'm at it, .sig files are supposed to be a maxium of 4 lines
including name and any "blank" lines you insert as a divider. I don't
care, but it just adds to the clutter. So, if anyone is going to trim,
start there.

Hasn't anybody ever read Netiquette?

Ok, ok. maybe it's like the Bible and it isn't true because it doesn't
exist. <wink>

Elaine, too

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

<rant on>

I know before I post this that this is a losing battle, but could we
please, please, please learn to trim posts? This means deleting enough
of the post to which we're replying to keep the meaning of the
original post. It means deleting anything that isn't on point to our
reply. It means not quoting 97 lines of a post with "Me, too!" or some
such.

I'm a long time Usenetizen and poster in RFC and this is just getting
worse and worse. We're not as concerned about bandwidth as we used to
be, but scrolling through dozens of lines of untrimmed posts is just
tiresome. Almost makes top posting almost seem reasonable.

<rant off>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
________________________________________

Okay, okay, I take it back! UnScrew you!