William Crawford wrote:
> Some email programs (including gmail) now make threads from replies now. 
> But even without that, most people that top post don't have hugely 
> complex replies with no context in the message.  And if i find I -need- 
> more context, it's quoted below for a quick glance.  So it just doesn't 
> bother me.
> 

Still, it's proper form to think of people that feel uncomfortable 
skipping around a message to get the context, and don't like keeping the 
whole thread or quoted post in their heads to find out who was answering 
to what where. Remember that this is a free-time activity for most of 
the participating and they don't necessarily want to have to exercise 
full concentration because someone asking for help (which is the 
prevalent topic of most threads, at least originally) couldn't bother 
keeping the text concise.

> Maybe I just treat email/newsgroup stuff like it's non-professional and 
> won't always make sense.  If I expected perfect grammar, spelling and 
> full thoughts, I'd probably be annoyed at quite a few people.

Weirdly enough, I do expect, enforce, and am a general bitch over those 
on here. (Or at least a honest attempt - the "not my native language" 
excuse looks so out of place when your post didn't contain a single 
capital letter.) The topic of this mailing list is a serious one, and 
that warrants an at least somewhat mature approach to posting here in my 
opinion. (Random outbreaks of inanity notwithstanding - mature, not 
stick-up-butt.)

David Vallner