Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Original\s+Message\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Original\s+Message\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "Will Harper" <k4iww@nc.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:42:19 -0500; This forum would be so much nicer to read if we all turned off "Include Original Message" in our Email programs. Might save some bandwidth also. 73 -- Will, K4IWW ____________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00244.html (7,191 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:45:47 -0500; Yeah... I usually clip all but a sentence or two for reference, ... that should be sufficient to keep us focused on the developing thread. Happy days. -- JHR -- . ____________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00245.html (7,428 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <Mike_N4NT@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:46:33 -0500; Most of us couldn't follow the thread... wouldn't know to what the reply referred. It surely doesn't take much bandwidth to pass text emails. I like it the way it is and would so vote. 73, Mike N4NT; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00247.html (7,525 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Jim Vohland <n9vo@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:01:08 -0500; While in theory it might be nice to save a few bytes, it really wouldn't matter too much in the scheme of things. It is easy to follow a thread when it's all there. For those wanting to save bandwidt; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00248.html (9,211 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Carl Moreschi <n4py2@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:04:27 -0500; I agree on this. I need to see the entire previous messages to get the context of what is going on. I'm on a lot of lists and it helps very much to see the original message. Carl Moreschi N4PY 121 Li; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00249.html (10,017 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Keith Hamilton <tuner@zoominternet.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:31:54 -0500; I do not agree at all. It would make reading the list harder and would only save a tiny amount of bandwidth. 73 Keith. N8CEP Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ TenTec; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00250.html (8,283 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "Phil Chambley, Sr." <k4dpk@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:14:40 -0500; I agree with Mike and others. Much easier to follow with some history. Phil C. Sr. k4dpk _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contest; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00254.html (9,476 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: geoffrey mendelson <geoffreymendelson@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:17:49 +0200; No, it's totally unnecessary. <ducks> Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-( _______________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00255.html (8,342 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "N3XX" <n3xx@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:53:41 -0500; If the original messge is not there, how are you supposed to know what someone is responding to? It doesn't take me long to hit the delet key on those emails that don't include the original message.; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00256.html (8,346 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Frank <frankkamp@att.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:24:34 -0600; You agree that ducks are totally unecessary??!! _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00258.html (8,237 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:01:32 -0800; The operative word is SOME. People who are GOOD at email quote just enough of the original post so that others know what they're talking about. When you copy the entire message, it's a real PITA to s; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00259.html (8,506 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:52:58 -0500; Well... this is a first. Most groups want you to clip, but not totally delete the former message to indicate what you are referring to, but this is the very first group where anyone actually wants al; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00261.html (8,928 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: John K3GHH <k3ghh@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:56:35 +0000; Ah, I wondered if the "top vs bottom" issue would arise in this thread! I'm with JHR, strongly preferring "top posting." (The combination of "quoting everything" and "bottom posting" results, too oft; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00263.html (8,900 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:33:53 -0500; I prefer bottom posting when the responder quotes just what's pertinent to establish the context of the reply and snips the rest. Otherwise, it's a pita. Top posting above the entire copied thread is; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00264.html (8,749 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <Mike_N4NT@charter.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:27:18 -0500; It seems to me that folks ought to post the way they want and there need be no police or mothers telling any of us how to do it. There are different ideas. Who among us feels such a need to tell othe; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00265.html (9,729 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <Mike_N4NT@charter.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:03:47 -0500; If a conservative does not like to eat meat, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal does not like to eat meat, he wants it banned. If a conservative does not like the SUV, he doesn't own an SUV. If a libe; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00266.html (8,759 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Floyd Sense <floyd@k8ac.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:57:48 -0500; And if a "conservative" doesn't like what someone else says or does, he calls them a liberal. I think your comments are out of place here, Mike. There's no need to demonize someone because he doesn't; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00267.html (9,528 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: "Mike Hyder -N4NT-" <Mike_N4NT@charter.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:03:33 -0500; Let's see... according to you everybody but me gets to voice his opinion. I advocate a laissez-faire attitude. Because that seems a philosophy alien to you, I respectfully suggest you view the second; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00268.html (10,389 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:03:22 -0500; Not if you are handicapped and it is difficult to scroll down... I work with handicapped people so I always top post. Just a thought... == JHR == . _______________________________________________ Ten; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00269.html (8,792 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] Original Message (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:07:56 -0500; Gee... maybe a little latent hostility emerging...Mike ? ;-) NO ONE is TELLING or compelling anyone how to act... we are discussing, in good old democratic fashion, what WE feel... stating our opinio; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-11/msg00270.html (10,442 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]