Conrad Schneiker <schneiker / jump.net> wrote:
>Thanks for your last post.
>
>Now I understand why this is *not* the way I should reply!
>
>I didn't realize it was bad netiquette and generally inconsiderate to
>put replies to posts before the material you are referring to. What
>was I thinking?

Your sarcasm really isn't neccesary.  If you give it just a little bit
of thought, it makes sense.  The "outlook" way of replying is to put your
entire message before what you're replying to and without any edits or 
redactions to what you're replying to.  Thus, those who want to read your
reply have to scroll down to read what you're replying to and *then* go 
back and read your reply; and if you reply to more than one point, they
have to mentally link up what was in the original with what was in your 
reply.

I doubt these rules were made to be capricious and burdensome.  It is 
simply easier to read things when you first read what someone originally
said, and then see what you say in reply, back and forth, back and forth,
through the message.  Let's say that someone wants to reply to your post
but they also want to seperately respond to some of the things in the
original post.  Interweaving the original(s) with the reply(ies) makes 
it easy for everybody to know just exactly what you're talking about.

Posting is not just about saying stuff, it's about communicating.  It is
considered "appropriate" not to talk at the same time someone else is talking,
and it is considered "appropriate" to interweave the text of your reply with
the original text. *shrug*

Jeremy