John Pearson wrote:
> That is good news for me. ...

This is getting a rediculous.  Your reply was 181 lines long, and
contained exactly 9 lines of new content, including the two for the blank
line and your signature.  Did you really think all remaining 172 lines
were relevant to your reply, including the 26 lines of just footers and
blank space from 3 previous posts, and the 11 lines containing only
"Russell McMahon" and nothing else?  Is it that you're too lazy to trim
it, or too arrogant to care?

Look folks, it's time to clean up our collective acts.  It would be nice
if everyone:

1  -  Trimmed the message they are replying to of stuff not relevant to
the reply.  At an absolute minimum this includes the 4 line trailer added
by the mail server, the previous poster's signature (like the 5 lines my
mailer adds to the bottom of my messages), and other formatting fluff.
Normally this should also include substantial parts of the original
message.

2  -  Did leave enough of the original message to provide a context for
the reply.  And no, a link to the original message stored somewhere else
is not a substitute for this.  Not everyone is on line when reading
messages, the remote server may not be up, and it provides no way to
identify what part of the original message the new points are in response
to.

3  -  Inserted the reply in-line after the point being replyied to, rather
than at the top or bottom.  This makes it easy to see the flow of
original - response - original - response, etc, like in a real
converstation.

These things are neither difficult nor time consuming to do.  It's just
common sense and courtesy to your readers.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu