🚀 go-pugleaf

I wouldn't get too excited about it one way or another.  My personal
preference is to trim by paragraph and write below what I quote, but as you
can see from this post I don't always keep to that.  Everyone has their own
preference and nobody (including the believers in RFCs) has a claim on
absolute truth, so develop a style that gets your point across while meeting
your needs and you'll be fine.

Matthew DeLuca


Gary James wrote:

> jim patterson wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting point because it has just recently been brought
> > up to me by a scot that it was bad net manners to trim a post.  On the
> > same day, i saw a message on another similar Internationally
> > subscribed group that said to NOT trim the posts down to what you were
> > specifically referring to in your reply was bad netiquette.  Hence i
> > guess it is a case of 'when in rome' where rome becomes the NG of
> > currency. Personally i think it is pretty silly to have page after
> > page of quoted material in a discussion to get down to a 2 line
> > comment which the reader is not sure what applies to.
> >
> > On 23 Oct 2000 01:41:51 GMT, Ze Ninguem <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
> >
> > >And anyway, are you just averse to trimming quoted text and sigs, or do
> > >you simply not know how to do it?
>
> I have tried to trim a few posts on some of the large political groups and
> I get : "You SOB, you edited out my meaning ! ".
>
> But if you guys at GIT prefer it, I shall trim when posting to this group.
>
> Gary