>>... nothing but quoted text where I'd have >>to scroll down 3 screens' worth just to see the entire replied-to >>message with nothing but an added "Thanks, that worked!" at the very >>end, etc., I just plain skip to the next email w/o even looking further.
>You're talking about people who don't prune the quotes. This is one That, too. Me personally, I'll try to prune away all but the basic gist of what's being asked, eg, an OP will post a paragraph of what he's doing, an example of what text he wants to operate on, and the question, "How would I go about x/y/z?", I'll trim all but the final question, *maybe* some relevant section of the text (if actually necessary), as anyone who wants to read the background again can go back to the original post. >reason people prefer top-posting; they're too lazy to cut out everything >but what they're replying to. :) And on a Winsucks system, I imagine <^A><del> is just *so* much work... Seriously, all it takes is to reply to one person offering a solution, delete *EVERYTHING*, and just reply back with a "Thanks, everyone, it worked!" or whatever. Is it remotely relevant *which* post was replied to when offering a thanks? Or in a more general situation, to include an entire thread 5 levels deep when only replying to a single section? It's just laziness that people don't bother when replying. So hey, why should *I* bother to read it? I just liken this to a situation where someone insists on calling someone "Bobby" when the person strongly prefers "Robert". To insist, over and over despite multiple correction, on calling someone a name he makes clear he doesn't like, is selfish at best, demeaning and insulting at worst. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
