On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:56:04 -0400, Michael Z Daryabeygi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...] > No one leaves the entire thread intact as one reply follows another. > So I think the argument of context is bogus. Long threads with multiple branches (like this one). You reach the end of one branch, and go to the next branch. Now you're lost. Or reading going through the thread as it develops (like this one). I post a message, read the rest of the messages on the list, wait a little while, then check for new messages. If I find a new message in this thread, I'll need context, because there were 20 messages the last time I checked the thread, and I don't know which message is being replied to. > Sometimes you just have to look back through the thread, but if you > have been following the thread, you just read the new posts and it > doesn't matter if it is at the beginning or the end. Then why bother quote the original message at all? Did you really have to include the text of the last three messages? > The new post is more important and therefore should come first. If > you can scroll down to read a new post, why can't you scroll down to > find the context when you are confused? Because sometimes it's not clear which particular point is being replied to. Besides, I don't want to be confused in the first place. > Why do you always want to scroll down when you could just scroll down > in the rare instance of having missed something? If you trim properly, you shouldn't need to scroll down (much -- at most one screenful, depending on how big your screen is). -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
