original messages in the reply

some persons when they reply to doubts they remove the original messages. If
somebody who is not the originator the doubts sees this reply he/she is
not able to find out to what doubt this is the reply. It would be better if
the whole thread is available in each message. this is relevant to all the
newsgroups.

I request any of the MVPs give their general advice on this.

The problem is that in this case so much extraneous gumpf can be left on a
message. Imagine a thread with 50 responses in which each has the whole of
every previous thread.

Also consider the situation where two people reply to the same question. The
in effect open 2 sub-threads, the first will not contain the details in the
second, and vice versa, and nor will any subsequent responses to either
sub-thread
It is a difficult one to get right, but in general I think the best way is
to either keep just the previous item, that is the one that you are
responding to, or respond specifically to sections by embedding your
comments within their text, something like

> previous poster said

and I reply

> and he also said

to which I reply.

Some people also maintain that your response should be after the previous
post, but I find this messy and less helpful.

And don't forget, if threaded you should be able to see all previous
responses anyway.

--

HTH

RP
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)


"R.VENKATARAMAN" <vram26@vsnl$$$.net> wrote in message
news:O3UbS1lcFHA.3504@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> some persons when they reply to doubts they remove the original messages.
If
> somebody who is not the originator the doubts sees this reply he/she is
> not able to find out to what doubt this is the reply. It would be better
if
> the whole thread is available in each message. this is relevant to all the
> newsgroups.
>
> I request any of the MVPs give their general advice on this.
>
>

thank you Mr. Phillips for explaining the problem. Of course one way to go
to google groups search and see all the messages of that subject. anyhow I
understand the problem.


Bob Phillips <bob.phillips@notheretiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#cWF6XmcFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The problem is that in this case so much extraneous gumpf can be left on a
> message. Imagine a thread with 50 responses in which each has the whole of
> every previous thread.
>
> Also consider the situation where two people reply to the same question.
The
> in effect open 2 sub-threads, the first will not contain the details in
the
> second, and vice versa, and nor will any subsequent responses to either
> sub-thread
> It is a difficult one to get right, but in general I think the best way
is
> to either keep just the previous item, that is the one that you are
> responding to, or respond specifically to sections by embedding your
> comments within their text, something like
>
> > previous poster said
>
> and I reply
>
> > and he also said
>
> to which I reply.
>
> Some people also maintain that your response should be after the previous
> post, but I find this messy and less helpful.
>
> And don't forget, if threaded you should be able to see all previous
> responses anyway.
>
> --
>
> HTH
>
> RP
> (remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)
>
>
> "R.VENKATARAMAN" <vram26@vsnl$$$.net> wrote in message
> news:O3UbS1lcFHA.3504@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > some persons when they reply to doubts they remove the original
messages.
> If
> > somebody who is not the originator the doubts sees this reply he/she
is
> > not able to find out to what doubt this is the reply. It would be
better
> if
> > the whole thread is available in each message. this is relevant to all
the
> > newsgroups.
> >
> > I request any of the MVPs give their general advice on this.
> >
> >
>
>