Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb <morpheus@rpglink.com>]

    I am doing this message wrong to prove a point.  First of, Johnny, my name
is Steve, not Steven.  Johann, I would appreciate it if you used it correctly.
Secondly, what you are doing is what I am doing here.  Reply first, and then
quoting.  If you had read the FAQ in its entirety you would have seen that the
qualification of "everything" is not important as "at the end."

    So, here they are *again*, with highlighting so you get it.

"To send better messages, please trim and summarize what you're replying to,
and integrate your quoted text with the body of your message."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Worst of all, you have done so by merely appending the complete message at
the bottom. Folks are used to reading the original material first, then the
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
follow-up. That's why it's called a "follow-up", you know. :-)"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"If all you want to do is forward a copy of the message, that's one thing, but
here you seem to have just blindly pasted the complete old message at the end
                                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
without providing any content. This is neither a proper public followup nor
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
even a decent private reply. Here's why."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"This isn't really an issue of space (I know that a few bytes here and there
mean less today than 20 years go), so much as it is of integrating your
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
comments with the old material for continuity."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"The best way to do this is to interleave what you're quoting with your
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
responses to that particular piece. That means that you should provide a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
quoted portion, then address what the points therein, then another quoted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
section, etc."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Finally, what you are doing does not provide context.  If you had read it,
and I hope you did this time, you would see that interleaving is what provides
context.  You are not interleaving at all.  You are replying at the top with
the quoted text at the bottom.

    If you don't understand it, read it again.  Read it completely.  Don't
dismiss it.

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 9:50:47 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Good god.  Steven is even quoting Tom Christianson wrong.  Tom said not to
> stick the WHOLE message at the bottom, where it doesn't provide context.
> What I have been doing falls in the realm of "providing context".

> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>     Goody, I get to use this.  Thank Tom Christiansen for this one.  It was
>> written with Usenet in mind but most of these translate right over to mail.
>> Enjoy.
>> -- Tom Christiansens FAQ --
>> and integrate your quoted text with the body of your message. Don't just put
>> everything at the end.




-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------