Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg89180] Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 04:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <g0m8tt$14$1@smc.vnet.net> <g0rkfr$dtv$1@smc.vnet.net> <200805200627.CAA23235@smc.vnet.net> <g11qvh$a6r$1@smc.vnet.net> <200805220637.CAA22441@smc.vnet.net> <g15qp8$pe6$1@smc.vnet.net> <g18hqe$khq$1@smc.vnet.net> <g1avsp$ffq$1@smc.vnet.net>
I totally agree with AES on snipping extraneous material from postings and I also always top post (except some newsgroups won't allow it.) That way the new information is the first thing. This assumes that most readers have been following the thread, or that the new information can largely stand on its own. It is irksome to have to search for the new material - especially when it turns out to be something trivial. And it doesn't make any difference whether it's a email or a newsgroup posting. -- David Park djmpark at comcast.net http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/ "AES" <siegman at stanford.edu> wrote in message news:g1avsp$ffq$1 at smc.vnet.net... > > Brent and David, > > Not to be snippy here --- or maybe the honest phrasing is, "to _be_ > snippy about snipping" --- but have neither of you ever encountered the > concept of snipping out the irrelevant portions of a message to which > you are responding? > > In the present instance at least, readers had to page down through three > to four _screenfuls_ of essentially irrelevant quotes in Brett's > original posting in order to get to _three lines_ of actual information, > and then do this once again in David's reply to get to his _two lines_ > of further response? > > Doesn't your newsreader make it easy to do that? >
- References:
- Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: David Bailey <dave@Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: David Bailey <dave@Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Re: Range of Use of Mathematica