Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #57155 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MB <MB@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-04-25 08:58 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-04-28 02:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast
Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 08:58 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 09:28 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 10:11 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> - 2021-04-25 10:25 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 10:47 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-25 12:13 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 12:27 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 12:33 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 09:11 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-26 09:19 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 07:55 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-26 17:11 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-26 16:47 +0000
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 10:45 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-26 18:20 +0000
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 11:44 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 16:02 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 16:49 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 18:39 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 12:26 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:20 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:37 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Laurence Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> - 2021-04-28 21:40 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-28 22:01 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2021-04-29 09:19 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-28 02:29 +0000
OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 16:14 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:42 -0700
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:42 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:07 -0700
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:37 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2021-04-29 09:06 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:45 -0600
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:50 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:57 -0600
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:10 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2021-04-29 09:31 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2021-04-28 20:06 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 20:24 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2021-04-29 10:29 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2021-04-29 10:35 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2021-04-29 11:05 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-29 15:58 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2021-04-29 19:04 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style Robin <rbw@outlook.com> - 2021-04-29 11:01 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> - 2021-04-26 23:29 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 16:01 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> - 2021-04-26 23:28 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 16:57 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 18:56 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 09:32 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 10:59 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 12:28 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:23 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:50 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:51 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:15 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 11:48 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:58 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-26 20:00 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 12:25 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 16:26 -0500
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-27 05:07 +0000
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 21:19 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 15:54 -0500
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 22:58 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 17:55 -0500
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-25 09:47 -0500
Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header (was: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 18:27 -0500
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header (was: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-27 10:45 +0100
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-27 14:05 -0500
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-27 20:10 +0100
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-27 15:05 -0500
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-27 21:20 +0100
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-27 17:39 -0500
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-28 06:58 +0100
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-28 01:59 -0500
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-27 22:03 +0100
Re: Cross-posting not showing in Newsgroups header Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-28 02:50 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 20:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <zfV8MzV6ZbigFw9Q@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57275 |
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 20:06:56, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised): >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to >> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened >> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast >> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others >> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they >> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, >> that their entire reply should go there. > >At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who >puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the >summary can be read at a glance along one line? > > [Provocatively] Yes (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf /Downton Abbey/ presented a version of the past that appealed to anyone who had ever bought a National Trust tea towel. - Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-29 10:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <1p8e7j2.e30i2vav7000N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57276 |
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 20:06:56, Liz Tuddenham > <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow > points raised): > >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > > > >> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to > >> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened > >> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast > >> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others > >> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they > >> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, > >> that their entire reply should go there. > > > >At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who > >puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the > >summary can be read at a glance along one line? > > > > > [Provocatively] Yes (-: [Sadly] Well I thought it was a good idea. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-29 10:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <s6dum5$gni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57294 |
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1p8e7j2.e30i2vav7000N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... > J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 20:06:56, Liz Tuddenham >> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow >> points raised): >> >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >> > >> >> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it >> >> to >> >> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened >> >> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently >> >> fast >> >> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others >> >> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - >> >> they >> >> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, >> >> that their entire reply should go there. >> > >> >At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who >> >puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the >> >summary can be read at a glance along one line? >> > >> > >> [Provocatively] Yes (-: > > [Sadly] Well I thought it was a good idea. I keep ongoing every-few-days records of our electricity and gas meter usage as an Excel spreadsheet so they can be graphed. I instinctively put the dates in ascending order - oldest at the top, newest at the bottom with totals/averages below that. My wife suggested turning the whole thing upside down (latest date at the top of the sheet, with the lowest row number). Surprisingly the line-graph feature of Excel is quite happy to plot a graph where the latest date (RHS of graph axis) is the lowest row and oldest date (LHS of axis) is the highest row.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-29 11:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <ievenuF6h7cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57294 |
On 29/04/2021 10:29, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 20:06:56, Liz Tuddenham >> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow >>> At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who >>> puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the >>> summary can be read at a glance along one line? >>> >>> >> [Provocatively] Yes (-: > > [Sadly] Well I thought it was a good idea. > > I use two or more sheets. The results go on page 1 in the workbook, the working and data goes on the other sheets. One I did was a payroll for a company with 30 workers, all paid by the hour, with random rest patterns with legally required working hour limitations, and about 4 different pay rates per worker. Writing it was not fun. Mind you, it worked, until the layer above me deliberately broke the system again. Five iterations later, I could no longer dodge the fact that underpaying workers was a deliberate policy, so I left. So did most of the workers I was controlling. -- Tciao for Now! John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-29 15:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <zUTMuOmhmsigFwtb@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57294 |
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 10:29:24, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised): >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 20:06:56, Liz Tuddenham >> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow >> points raised): >> >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >> > >> >> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to >> >> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened >> >> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast >> >> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others >> >> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they >> >> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, >> >> that their entire reply should go there. >> > >> >At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who >> >puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the >> >summary can be read at a glance along one line? >> > >> > >> [Provocatively] Yes (-: > >[Sadly] Well I thought it was a good idea. > > As I said, I was being provocative - as well as, I don't think I _have_ seen anyone else do it. (I have seen people - like the ONS for RPI/CPI etc. - do a summary front _sheet_.) I actually agree: it _is_ a good idea. (Well, I'd prefer a way of coding a spreadsheet that is more than a window high so that it opens with the bottom displayed, but failing that, I do like your idea.) Though - as it's basically bringing top-posting to spreadsheets - I'd want plenty of text pointing out to the reader that that was what's going on. Do you _also_ put the totals in their usual place at the bottom? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf More people watch live theatre every year than Premier League football matches. - Libby Purves, RT 2017/9/30-10/6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-29 19:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <1p8evcp.1rwsjv8134i38dN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57298 |
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 10:29:24, Liz Tuddenham > <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow > points raised): > >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 20:06:56, Liz Tuddenham > >> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow > >> points raised): > >> >J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to > >> >> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened > >> >> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast > >> >> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others > >> >> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they > >> >> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, > >> >> that their entire reply should go there. > >> > > >> >At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who > >> >puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the > >> >summary can be read at a glance along one line? > >> > > >> > > >> [Provocatively] Yes (-: > > > >[Sadly] Well I thought it was a good idea. > > > > > As I said, I was being provocative - as well as, I don't think I _have_ > seen anyone else do it. (I have seen people - like the ONS for RPI/CPI > etc. - do a summary front _sheet_.) > > I actually agree: it _is_ a good idea. (Well, I'd prefer a way of coding > a spreadsheet that is more than a window high so that it opens with the > bottom displayed, but failing that, I do like your idea.) Though - as > it's basically bringing top-posting to spreadsheets - I'd want plenty of > text pointing out to the reader that that was what's going on. I usually put clear emboldened or capitalised headers to explain what each total is (although emboldening doesn't travel if I export it in another format). > > Do you _also_ put the totals in their usual place at the bottom? No - because the columns are often different lengths and you would have to scroll up and down looking for the totals. Sometimes it isn't even clear where the bottom is, because some spreadsheets gets updated from time to time and the columns lengthen. (This is in Claris Works Spreadsheet, it might be different in other systems.) -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin <rbw@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-29 11:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <39d0ca50-277c-039d-b502-25fc812deb30@outlook.com> |
| In reply to | #57275 |
On 28/04/2021 20:06, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to >> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened >> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast >> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others >> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they >> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, >> that their entire reply should go there. > > At the risk of starting an entirely new thread, am I the only one who > puts the 'bottom line' totals at the *top* of spreadsheets, so the > summary can be read at a glance along one line? > It's dead common in data from the ONS. E.g. <https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales> -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 23:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ieot5iFt43kU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57197 |
On 26/04/2021 19:44, Ken Blake wrote: > No argument from me, but it matters much less if the quoted material and > the reply both fit on the screen. > > I use an upright monitor for this. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s67d9s$1hk$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57196 |
On 4/26/21 12:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Preserving logical reading order still matters. Indeed! -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 23:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ieot4fFt43kU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57195 |
On 26/04/2021 18:45, Ken Blake wrote: > Yes! If replies only quoted the points being replied to, it would > usually not matter I never over quote. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iep2bmFu1siU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57208 |
On 4/26/2021 3:28 PM, williamwright wrote: > On 26/04/2021 18:45, Ken Blake wrote: > >> Yes! If replies only quoted the points being replied to, it would >> usually not matter > > I never over quote. I try to never overquote, but not being perfect, I sometimes err in that regard. By the way, in this case, as far as I'm concerned, you underquoted, since someone new to the thread wouldn't necessarily understand what would usually not matter. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 18:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s67nhi$4rs$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57213 |
On 4/26/21 5:57 PM, Ken Blake wrote: > By the way, in this case, as far as I'm concerned, you underquoted, > since someone new to the thread wouldn't necessarily understand what > would usually not matter. You said "someone new to the thread". Meaning that they would have access to the collection of messages. Which means that they could read them in chronological order and have full context. It's natural to assume that someone jumping into the /middle/ of a conversation would not have context and would be confused. There is zero reason to carry the entire conversation forward in each and every single message. >>>>>>>>> Q1 ... >>>>>>>> A1 ... >>>>>>> Q2 ... >>>>>> A2 ... >>>>> Q3 ... >>>> A3 ... >>> Q4 ... >> A4 ... > Q5 ... A5 ... $DEITY forbid that something happens to break the line wrapping. >>>>>>>>>> Q1 >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> A1 >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Q2 >>>>> ... >>>>>>> A2 > ... >>>>>> Q3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>> A3 > ... >>>> Q4 > ... >>> A4 >>> ... >> Q5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > A5 ... $DEITY help you if the lines consist of more than "Q#" or "A#" and "..." wherein lines end up betting re wrapped with different indentations. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ieqsk3Fa8veU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57215 |
On 4/26/2021 5:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/26/21 5:57 PM, Ken Blake wrote: >> By the way, in this case, as far as I'm concerned, you underquoted, >> since someone new to the thread wouldn't necessarily understand what >> would usually not matter. > > You said "someone new to the thread". Meaning that they would have > access to the collection of messages. Which means that they could read > them in chronological order and have full context. If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go back and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the already-read messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and I rarely do it. In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that if you want everyone to understand what you're saying. > It's natural to assume that someone jumping into the /middle/ of a > conversation would not have context and would be confused. > > There is zero reason to carry the entire conversation forward in each > and every single message. I agree. But I disagree that that means it's OK not to quote enough to make your reply understood. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 10:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s69g0c$soc$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57232 |
On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may > display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go back > and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the already-read > messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and I rarely do it. > In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that if you want > everyone to understand what you're saying. I think we might be talking past each other a bit. > I agree. But I disagree that that means it's OK not to quote enough to > make your reply understood. I believe that judicious quotes should be used. Meaning quote (at least) specifically what you're replying to. But don't quote unnecessarily. That way when someone -- who has overall thread contest -- reads the message they will have both the specific part the reply is in reference to and the reply directly on screen in the same message. The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the reader's part. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ieqvpsFar55U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57233 |
On 4/27/2021 9:59 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >> If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may >> display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go back >> and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the already-read >> messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and I rarely do it. >> In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that if you want >> everyone to understand what you're saying. > > I think we might be talking past each other a bit. > >> I agree. But I disagree that that means it's OK not to quote enough to >> make your reply understood. > > I believe that judicious quotes should be used. > > Meaning quote (at least) specifically what you're replying to. But > don't quote unnecessarily. > > That way when someone -- who has overall thread contest -- reads the > message they will have both the specific part the reply is in reference > to and the reply directly on screen in the same message. > > The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is > in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the > reader's part. I agree. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 12:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s69l65$k11$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57234 |
On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > I agree. Yet your action's indicate otherwise. Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ietcvfFp26mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57236 |
On 4/27/2021 11:28 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >> I agree. > > Yet your action's indicate otherwise. > > Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. You're underquoting again. I agreed with many things you said. I have no idea which of my "I agree"s you're referring to. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s6c3qi$852$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57258 |
On 4/28/21 9:23 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > You're underquoting again. I agreed with many things you said. I have no > idea which of my "I agree"s you're referring to. I replied to the only new content that you added to your message. The only two words that you put in the message I replied to were "I agree.", in response to 15 lines of quote, 5 of which were quotes of quotes. So your quote ratio was demonstrating that you did not agree. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s6c3td$852$3@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57234 |
On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > On 4/27/2021 9:59 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: >> On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >>> If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may >>> display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go >>> back and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the >>> already-read messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and >>> I rarely do it. In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that >>> if you want everyone to understand what you're saying. >> >> I think we might be talking past each other a bit. >> >>> I agree. But I disagree that that means it's OK not to quote enough >>> to make your reply understood. >> >> I believe that judicious quotes should be used. >> >> Meaning quote (at least) specifically what you're replying to. But >> don't quote unnecessarily. >> >> That way when someone -- who has overall thread contest -- reads the >> message they will have both the specific part the reply is in reference >> to and the reply directly on screen in the same message. >> >> The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is >> in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the >> reader's part. > > I agree. Yet your action's indicate otherwise. Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. I'm re-replying to this message with out any quote trimming so that Ken can see more context. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ietjhmFqan2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57265 |
On 4/28/2021 9:51 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >>> >>> The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is >>> in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the >>> reader's part. >> >> I agree. > > Yet your action's indicate otherwise. > > Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. > > I'm re-replying to this message with out any quote trimming so that Ken > can see more context. I've said my piece in this thread, repeating myself on some points several times. I have nothing new to add to what I've already said, so I won't repeat myself, and I'll let the thread die. I'll add just one quick comment in reply to this message: what I was agreeing with is that "The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the reader's part." I wasn't being facetious. That's my last post on this subject. Feel free to believe whatever you want. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast
csiph-web