The message
from "Sue" contains these words:


"La Puce" wrote
Janet Baraclough wrote:

Too bad your posts don't include any previous context, so nobody knows
what you're wittering about.

The context is not *that* a difficulty in this thread. snip

The thing is do we want to make our posts intelligible to the maximum
number or readers or not?

Without quotes you have to go hunting for context if, like many do, you
read several high-traffic groups

Quite. Kathryn has received a string of replies following her first
post. All those replies demonstrated reply-with-quote, politely making
the context and thread intelligible, especially to later arrivals who
missed the start. Despite that, every single post scattered through the
thread by K, failed to follow suit. Each one was unintelligible to any
late-comers. She is using the group, and the thread, as if they are her
private help-line, instead of the communal discussion newsgroups are
meant to be.


Janet

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:

Quite. Kathryn has received a string of replies following her first
post. All those replies demonstrated reply-with-quote, politely making
the context and thread intelligible, especially to later arrivals who
missed the start. Despite that, every single post scattered through the
thread by K, failed to follow suit. Each one was unintelligible to any
late-comers. She is using the group, and the thread, as if they are her
private help-line, instead of the communal discussion newsgroups are
meant to be.


Not everyone has the knowledge of how Usenet works, or the experience of
it to get things right at first.

If the posts had come from an experienced user I could AOL the irritation.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig