| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Bruce Hill |
| 2 |
<daddy@×××××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:23:35AM -0800, felix@×××××××.com wrote: |
| 4 |
> <snip, whack, d200d, cough, spit> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? |
| 7 |
> pastebins? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Felix, |
| 11 |
Personally, after years reading LKML, I have no problem with |
| 12 |
in-line text of _any_ length, especially on the initial post or when |
| 13 |
you are asked to respond with detailed info. While I understand |
| 14 |
Bruce's comment I don't think it represents a democratic picture of |
| 15 |
what this list has been comfortable with over the years. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That said, what I do have a BIG problem with is people responding |
| 18 |
and not taking the time to edit the response down to a few lines that |
| 19 |
make it clear about what their point is. Many responses to 1000 line |
| 20 |
emails are 1001 lines - the responder adds a one-liner. That's a real |
| 21 |
waste. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's a trade off. It's less likely that some of us will go read |
| 24 |
pastebin stuff, and if we want to respond technically then that's |
| 25 |
leaving us to copy/paste responses which I'm personally less likely to |
| 26 |
do. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Anyway, you pays your money, you takes your chance... ;-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
Mark |
Archives