Re: Trimming off > material

[Guest guest]

Hi Demetria;

I don't include anyone else's text unless it's necessary that it be

verbatim.

Archive space is finite and one day the listserv folks will probably

mention that and start compressing archives. Of course it's

possible they do that already.

Many lists mention keeping quoted text to a minimum in their

guidelines.

[Guest guest]

TRIM IT OFF! TRIM IT OFF!

It's only there because ppl dont bother to remove it. It can make

digests indigestible.

P.

mond-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=9105

> I just got two digests that were yards long. Some great posts from

some great people but

> also half of these digests were previously quoted material. I am

beginning to wonder, is there

> a standard on this list that suggests keeping the " > " material intact

every time we make a

> post?

>

> My habit is to trim it off. I may have trouble trimming the fat off

my bod but I do like to

> produce clean, easy-to-read posts. I apologise for the last one I

made; I forgot to turn the

> HTML off. Whoops! Hate it when that happens.

>

> As for the rest of the stuff oftentimes it's lurking right below the

line when you reply to a post.

> Which is I think why it often gets included by mistake. But what I

am wondering is, since so

> many folks don't trim that stuff off, am I doing something wrong by

trimming it off? It just

> occurred to me today maybe this list likes it there, to " catch up " on

old stuff maybe.

> Personally I find it just gets in the way...but only my opinion.

>

> cheers,

> -dm

>

>

> demitria monde thraam

> transmits at:

> http://thraam.com

>

[Guest guest]

TRIM IT OFF! TRIM IT OFF!

It's only there because ppl dont bother to remove it. It can make

digests indigestible.

P.

mond-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=9105

> I just got two digests that were yards long. Some great posts from

some great people but

> also half of these digests were previously quoted material. I am

beginning to wonder, is there

> a standard on this list that suggests keeping the " > " material intact

every time we make a

> post?

>

> My habit is to trim it off. I may have trouble trimming the fat off

my bod but I do like to

> produce clean, easy-to-read posts. I apologise for the last one I

made; I forgot to turn the

> HTML off. Whoops! Hate it when that happens.

>

> As for the rest of the stuff oftentimes it's lurking right below the

line when you reply to a post.

> Which is I think why it often gets included by mistake. But what I

am wondering is, since so

> many folks don't trim that stuff off, am I doing something wrong by

trimming it off? It just

> occurred to me today maybe this list likes it there, to " catch up " on

old stuff maybe.

> Personally I find it just gets in the way...but only my opinion.

>

> cheers,

> -dm

>

>

> demitria monde thraam

> transmits at:

> http://thraam.com

>

[Guest guest]

TRIM IT OFF! TRIM IT OFF!

It's only there because ppl dont bother to remove it. It can make

digests indigestible.

P.

mond-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=9105

> I just got two digests that were yards long. Some great posts from

some great people but

> also half of these digests were previously quoted material. I am

beginning to wonder, is there

> a standard on this list that suggests keeping the " > " material intact

every time we make a

> post?

>

> My habit is to trim it off. I may have trouble trimming the fat off

my bod but I do like to

> produce clean, easy-to-read posts. I apologise for the last one I

made; I forgot to turn the

> HTML off. Whoops! Hate it when that happens.

>

> As for the rest of the stuff oftentimes it's lurking right below the

line when you reply to a post.

> Which is I think why it often gets included by mistake. But what I

am wondering is, since so

> many folks don't trim that stuff off, am I doing something wrong by

trimming it off? It just

> occurred to me today maybe this list likes it there, to " catch up " on

old stuff maybe.

> Personally I find it just gets in the way...but only my opinion.

>

> cheers,

> -dm

>

>

> demitria monde thraam

> transmits at:

> http://thraam.com

>

[Guest guest]

If a 'list' said I would have to keep my posts at a 'minimun' I would ask

them... " WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE? " Who is the #@! defines how 'long'

a message should or shouldn't be??? Sheesh, that's like some idiotic AA

meeting when you (or should I say " I " ) wants to give feedback, and it's

marked as " cross talk " . If that's the kind of group I encounter, I'll just

go home and " cross talk " to myself in a mirror.

~Trixxi

Re: Trimming off " > " material

> Hi Demetria;

>

> I don't include anyone else's text unless it's necessary that it be

> verbatim.

>

> Archive space is finite and one day the listserv folks will probably

> mention that and start compressing archives. Of course it's

> possible they do that already.

>

> Many lists mention keeping quoted text to a minimum in their

> guidelines.

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Click on Instant Credit Card Approval at

> http://clickhere./click/1271

>

>

> -- Check out your eGroup's private Chat room

> -- /ChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 09:17 PM 11/5/99 -0600, butterbeana@... wrote:

>If a 'list' said I would have to keep my posts at a 'minimun' I would ask

>them... " WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE? " Who is the #@! defines how 'long'

>a message should or shouldn't be??? Sheesh, that's like some idiotic AA

Trixxi, you have misunderstood and are over-reacting. No one said anything

about limiting how much you can write on this list. The point is that it is

unnecesary and wasteful to quote in full a long message that you're responding

to.

Notice that I did not quote your whole message. I received the whole thing,

along with the previous message wrote (about 30 lines that we've already

seen on the list when first sent it), but it is not neccesary for me to

resend the whole thing. I can quote the first few sentences of what you

wrote, and that should be enough for everyone to get the gist of what you

wrote.

It is a point of Netiquette (a small collection of informal rules of good

online behavior, applicable to this and to most any other email list) that

when responding to a previously sent message you should only quote the

relevant

parts of a message to which you are responding. I've even heard of an ISP

which

runs a news server that won't post a Usenet message if more than half of it

is

quoted text. Your message would not have made it to Usenet from that service.

Whn you hit 'reply' please delete parts of the original message to which

you are not responding. This is the polite thing to do for other list

participants so they don't have to see a large block of text that ve most

likely already read.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Trixxi:

That's pretty funny. I'm getting a mental picture on that one. No wait a

minute that's not you she's cross dressing at the same time.

Seriously though. Some people have slow connections and it takes awhile to

download the relevant bits. It's sort of a waste of time to download the

same information over and over and then have to sit and scroll through it

all time after time, on a large thread, and that's assuming your mail client

hasn't made a first class unreadable mess out of the lot.

BTW I've been following your messages with quite a bit of interest. For

several months I was bringing a nurse, in a similar situation, to meetings.

hector

Re: Trimming off " > " material

If that's the kind of group I encounter, I'll just

go home and " cross talk " to myself in a mirror.

~Trixxi

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben;

My ISP is one of those you mentioned. It won't send a usenet

message that is 50% or more quoted text. I have to write more

original text than the amount I'm quoting. Both ISP's that I've used

in Iowa operate that way.