Re: rational or irrational?

mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Arturo Magidin wrote:
> > In article <1118786550.706770.316800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx <mensanator@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >

<snip>

> > >
> > >I never said you should NOT do it that way if you prefer.
> >
> > The use of "absolutely unnecessary" would seem to this humble
> > non-native speaker to indicate the method is somehow inferior.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. But when you shout
>
> DO NOT USE THE "REPLY" LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF A POST
>
> you seem to be parrotting the false notion that the "Reply" link
> is somehow broken. It is not. It just needs to be understood.
>

I think it also needs a hug. It has low self-esteem.

More to the point, by "broken", I would say - the "reply" link should
either always quote, or give you the option to default to either always
quoting or the current behavior. To always force by default to the
latter is not "typical" usenet ettiquette/form (regardless of whether
or not this is convenient for Google's purposes); and that makes it
"broken" because it doesn't do what it should do - meet the usual usage
requirements of usenet.

On the other hand, your /work-around/ for this broken behavior is good
to know as well (I have previously been using Arturo's workaround)!

Cheers - Chas

.

Quantcast