[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review



Am 16.09.2011 04:35, schrieb Jaime Headden:

 David, as I've said before, your manner of "quoting" leaves an
 enourmous room for error on the part of someone not intimately
 following any chain. If someone picked your post out for, say, a
 pithy comment or that they like reading what you write, and see this,
 how precisely are they to know you did not write it? It should be
 further noted that not all reply systems use ">" to indicate nesting
 conversations of quoting. It would help immeasurably if you just
 added in the name of the person to whom you are replying above the
 original quote, or (as in this post) simply include the body of the
 otherwise short message below (which immediately includes the short
 header for your message to which I reply.

 Cheers,

 Jaime A. Headden [rest of lengthy automatic signature snipped]

Blame it on Thunderbird.

First, if (and only if) the message I reply to was in plain text, Thunderbird does _not_ include a normal header, it only generates the line I didn't delete this time: in bad German; in non-English date format (day-month-year, not month-day-year, with the dots that mark ordinal numbers in German*); with the time in Central European Time, which makes little sense on a list full of Americans, and in non-English format ("14:00" rather than "2:00 pm" or the silly "1400"); with no indication of the sender's address if a name was given; and with no indication of the subject. (Strangely, a completely normal header comes up if the original was in HTML.) I rarely feel like rewriting the header all by myself, so I just drop it; _what_ I quote is, after all, more important than _who_ I quote anyway. I have not so far managed to find any settings to change so I could get Thunderbird to include a normal header.

(...<rant>Nor, BTW, is there a setting that would format the reply in plain text or HTML depending on the original. I can only choose between having them all in HTML or all in plain text. Because I sometimes use HTML in private e-mails, I have chosen HTML, and that means I have to manually change every single message to the DML to plain text and then manually rewrap its lines so it gets displayed on my computer as plain text before I send it. But I digress.</rant>)

Second, most e-mail programs use _something_ to automatically mark quotes, and most use >. I have no reason to add > for ornamental purposes or whatever, so it's a safe assumption that any vertical lines of > were generated by my e-mail program.

Third, I'm against including the entire original message, because that would double or triple the length of my messages even when most of the original message is irrelevant to mine. A few years ago, the administrators even said we should stop including the entire original message because most text on the DML was old quotes that had long become useless but kept being sent back and forth.

* We read dates in this format aloud as "sixteenth ninth two thousand eleven".