Subj : Re: Silly question - QWK download
To : Fernweh
From : Gamgee
Date : Fri Dec 05 2025 08:10 am
-=> Fernweh wrote to Gamgee <=-
Fe> I'm being snarky for humor only.
No, you're doing it because you're ignorant. I'm trying to help you get
past that.
Fe> Look, when someone says thank you for a response or a bit of tech help,
Fe> what's the point of quoting the entire conversation?
That's already been explained. In a word - "context".
Fe> If you jumped in midstream and you're confused, here's a revolutionary
Fe> idea: scroll up. It's all there.
Wrong. Again because of ignorance. Have you ever heard of an echomail
"Offline Reader"? Apparently not, or you'd not have made that statement
above. Many folks, including me, use that method of reading/replying to
messages.
Fe> This is also the reason threads go
Fe> massively long at the individual message level, because people won't
Fe> edit and quote irrelevant parts to their reply.
You're on a roll, wrong again. That is an entirely different issue,
which I sort of agree with you on. Correct quoting methods are indeed
important, including removing irrelevant parts. Fully agree with that.
But that doesn't mean you don't quote at all.
Fe> A thank you doesn't need a dissertation or a full-context replay like
Fe> it's a courtroom transcript.
Yes, it does need context. The way you did it there was ZERO indication
as to who/what you were thanking, or why. Maybe not the entire previous
conversation, but enough to be able to understand your reply.
Fe> Now we���re dissecting posting etiquette like it's 1994 and Usenet just
Fe> booted up.
Posting etiquette hasn't changed since 1994. Now you know.
Fe> It was two keywords: thank you. It didn���t need a 15-message committee
Fe> review. ;)
It did, and I've just explained why. Try to do better, please.
... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
