Re: Why people reply to posts (was: Cons …)

[Xavier Wang <weasley.wx@...>]

2011/9/16 Dirk Laurie <dpl@sun.ac.za>:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 04:21:58AM +0200, Xavier Wang wrote:
>>
>> I'm very sad that nobody reply my last post[1], even Roberto didn't.
>
> Most of us prefer to reply to posts that we have not quite read through
> yet, at a stage when we see some unimportant solecism on which we can
> pounce, thus increasing the number of hits Google gives when you search
> for our names, without the need to actually do any thinking.
>
> Roberto usually gives us the chance to do a fair amount of bickering
> and backbiting before stepping in.  So it is unfair to say "even
> Roberto didn't".  In fact, he is probably one of the few who actually
> unzipped your patch and tried it out.
>
> One hint: don't start the subject of a new post with "Re:".  It gives
> the impression that the thread has been going for some time and some
> people may fail even to open the post because they think they missed
> where it all started.
>
> Having done exactly what I have described, I shall now close this
> reply and continue reading the rest of your post.  :-)
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
>
Thank you very much, but just some explain: I don't want use Re: to
send post, but when I send my first post, the attachment is too big (I
attach a Win32 binary in it :(  So I had to send a second post. that's
my mistake, I'm sorry.