Re: OT (and Flamebait): Top-Posting
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:22:23 -0400
Lorenzo Taylor <lorenzo@taylor.homelinux.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stephen R Laniel's comments on Re: OT (and Flamebait): Top-Posting
> were as follows: # On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:52:41PM -0500, Kent West
> wrote: # <message>
> # <messageWereReplyingTo>
> # This is some stuff that a guy wrote
> # </messageWereReplyingTo>
> #
> # <whatWeSayInResponse>
> # I disagree vehemently with whatever you said
> # </whatWeSayInResponse>
> # </message>
>
> Wow! I really like the XML approach. But how are you going to get
> all the email programs in the world to use it? It seems too late to
> make such a smart new approach to email a standard now as old as email
> is. Then again, if HTML email is accepted in so many circles, (not
> here but ...) why not XML email everywhere? It's a much better
> approach than anything that has been thought up thus far.
>
> Let's take it one step further:
<snip - pseudo-xml content>
Ugh... and I thought HTML e-mail took a ton of disk space compared to
plain text. An inline reply would make the e-mail more than double in
size!
What happened to humans being smart enough to make things look neat and
clean?
When I first came to this list, I observed how others posted, received a
few tips when I messed up and the rest of my time has been spent helping
and being helped. I knew that to get help from this list I would need to
follow _this lists's_ rules. What's so hard about that? (And I'm a young
guy... not some old 'dinosaur' that cut their teeth on CP/M. :-)
Just my $0.02.
Jacob
P.S. No, this is not meant as a flame and notice that I did not use any
upper case words - I was not yelling or mad. :-)
Reply to: