Phil Weldon wrote:
How about the most common case; where the user reads the posts as a batch?
I hope the attention span is long enough in this newsgroup to remember the
discussion from one post to another - think of a thread as an analog of a
conversation rather than as an exchange of post office mail.

I don't think you can, or should, count on that. But if you are, then why copy
the original text in the reply? But if you're including it then having it making
logical sense applies again.

Kinda reminds me of an FDA calibration requirements lecture I attended. The
point was made that all measuring devices needed a calibration schedule. The
question would get raised "but do I need to calibrate things that aren't really
a part of the process?" Reply was "then why do you have it?" "well, it's nice to
sometimes look at insert measurement" but it's not really important." "Then
take it out if it's not important." "But I like to see it." "Then you're
obviously using it and should calibrate it."

I.E. If it's there then it should work but if you're not going to make it work
then take it out.

The amusing aspect to the lecture was as soon as one questioner would finally
accept that their particular 'unimportant' device needed calibration another
hand would go up from someone else wondering if THEIR particular 'unimportant'
device also needed calibration.

Some folks apparently had a bit of trouble grasping it at the 'conceptual'
level. hehe


Though I do agree that, if the ideas have no logical flow, then the
conversation needs a lot of formating help.

As for snipping, that can result in a distortion of the original statement -
people tend to edit for brevity in the light of their preconceptions or
misreadings. I'd rather go back to the full original post.

Right, especially if it's a 'debate'.


Phil Weldon,

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
.
.
.

The point is that people logically expect, and read, 'from statement to

reply'

so putting the reply above what's replied to is out of sequence.

If the original is unnecessary to the reply then it can, and should, be

snipped

for the sake of clarity. If it's useful for context then it should be in

the

proper logical order: I.E. before the reply. Complex questions and replies

are

more logical if the answer is inserted at the point where the specific

question

being replied to took place.

To wit:

No

Does this flow properly?

3

How many geese in a gaggle? What is the first positive prime number? What

is a

baker's dozen?