Re: netettique, included text

Subject: Re: netettique, included text
From: LaVonna Funkhouser <lffunkhouser -at- HALNET -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 08:25:34 -0600

Reference: Steven Owens's comments about including text.

I feel I have to defend myself.

Yes, including all of a previous posting can be annoying,
especially if it is long. However, you should note that for
those of us with less-than-adequate mail interfaces, replying
is an all-or-nothing situation.

I have seen ELM, and it is sweet. I only have Pathworks Mail
and vi available to me, and they are not. Because I find vi
confusing, I use the other, but because I cannot block and
edit text, I either include *all* of the previous post, or
none of the previous posting (as I have done here).

Recently, however, when I included none of a post to which I
had referred, another subscriber asked for clarification.
That is why I chose to break Steven's pet peeve and include
all of the previous post.

Here's another netettique pet peeve of mine: power typing
(long paragraphs).

lffunkhouser -at- halnet -dot- com

ps: I also don't currently have news access.

Previous by Author: Re: Style Checker
Next by Author: Good News! Isn't feedback great?
Previous by Thread: netettique, included text
Next by Thread: netettique, included text

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads