| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Bruce Hill |
| 3 |
> <daddy@×××××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:23:35AM -0800, felix@×××××××.com wrote: |
| 5 |
>> <snip, whack, d200d, cough, spit> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? |
| 8 |
>> pastebins? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Felix, |
| 12 |
> Personally, after years reading LKML, I have no problem with |
| 13 |
> in-line text of _any_ length, especially on the initial post or when |
| 14 |
> you are asked to respond with detailed info. While I understand |
| 15 |
> Bruce's comment I don't think it represents a democratic picture of |
| 16 |
> what this list has been comfortable with over the years. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Agreed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That said, what I do have a BIG problem with is people responding |
| 22 |
> and not taking the time to edit the response down to a few lines that |
| 23 |
> make it clear about what their point is. Many responses to 1000 line |
| 24 |
> emails are 1001 lines - the responder adds a one-liner. That's a real |
| 25 |
> waste. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Guilty. To be fair, I try to properly snip and edit when I can, but if |
| 28 |
I'm responding from my phone (more often than not, of late), getting |
| 29 |
that kind of editing work in is very difficult. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
:wq |
Archives