Who reads their email the most Classically?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 06:09:51PM -0700, Cameron Kaiser wrote: It depends. If one is blindly copying the entire previous message (or worse, entire message thread), it is better to put all that garbage at the bottom of the new message so the reader can easily ignore such chaff. (Can you tell I have a bias?) I am of the school of thought that figures the only reason for quoting previous content is to provide context so the new message will make sense. Following this reasoning, the context should be established first. HOWEVER, it is very important to trim the quote so that it only provides enough context and doesn't go overboard and turn into spam. Ever seen the TV program "The West Wing"? They start most programs with a short "previously on The West Wing..."-bit. It comes first (so the following program will make sense) and it is shorter than the new program (even though it covers more territory--the idea is that it be the new stuff that is important). It is also important to make clear what is what. I have seen messages where the new material is apparently marked off with quoting characters. I don't know how that happens. Remember, the goal is to communicate--and to be clear even. -kb, the normally liberal Kent who was nevertheless ~rather~ fond of that fascist feature in "rn" that refused to make a usenet posting that had more quoted material than new material.