[SC-Help] Re: Political unsolicited email?

[Mike Easter]

I'm getting a little confused, or perhaps we need to 'summarize', so I'll
remake our dialogue here

Martin Edwards wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>>
>> The non-contextualized untrimmed poster can be almost guaranteed to
>> not be properly addressing whatever they are commenting on that came
>> before. It isn't completely impossible for them to do so;  but it is
>> statistically highly improbable.
>
> Yet I've been told off in another group for snipping.  Apparently they
> like to be able to read the whole discussion in one post.


Martin Edwards wrote:
> No, I mean they bottom post, but do not trim.


OK.  We'll discuss communicating in some group where everyone [else, the
Romans] performs untrimmed noncontextualized bottom posting, and you are
going to come along and trim for your responses.

And, you are saying that someone sometime in such a very unusual group
has complained because you trimmed.

I would simply ignore that complaint.  But/And I wouldn't take it upon
myself to try to convert the group, and I wouldn't argue with the person
who complained, and I wouldn't change my trim style.  If they wanted to
read what was said before, they can look at the preceding message;  I
might educate them to that fact.  I guess I would configure my cite gizmo
differently than I use it here, which is a short form which includes only
your name, no addy or date or msgid - into one which includes the message
id.  Then, if they wanted to know what came before unedited, they could
access the msg which I'm citing.


And, my short form attribution line brings up another little peeve of
mine.  I think the use of excessively long cutesy attributions is a
little silly.  Not a little, quite a lot.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin