[Ger-Poland-Volhynia] Duplication

[Jerry Frank]

It is called a thread, Clifford.

As you can see below, I have included your original message so that 
you (and others) can see what I am responding to.  The decision about 
what does or does not get included is up to the person who is 
responding.  There is no way to control that with our system.

Most people, especially on a mailing list, would want to be reminded 
about the original question so that they can follow the 
discussion.  An answer that appears in isolation of the question 
might be somewhat meaningless, especially if other discussion has 
occurred between the original question and the one currently 
posted.  In the old days of communicating by letter, one would 
probably restate the question before providing the answer.  In the 
email age, especially when others are party to the communication, it 
is easier just to leave the entire original question (and discussion) 
as part of the thread.

If there are multiple questions and I am only responding to one of 
them, I might delete those other ones.  I also usually take the time 
to delete meaningless info such as advertising that unfortunately 
gets appended to all Yahoo subscriber messages, or to delete the 
SGGEE mailing list description that gets appended to all of ours, but 
we have no rule in place for everyone to make such deletions.

If you don't want to read stuff that is repeated, just stop reading 
at the point where a line similar to the following is inserted:

At 11:37 PM 22/11/2006, John Doe wrote:


Jerry Frank - Calgary, Alberta
FranklySpeaking at shaw.ca





At 11:37 PM 22/11/2006, Clifford wrote:
>2006-11-22
>
>Hi Frank
>
>I observe that the same message is often repeated
>within an issue and / or within a volume.
>
>I waste much time reading these same messages.
>I think that there is no value in  having duplicate messages.
>
>I suggest, if possible, that a message should appear only ONCE.
>
>Please explain to me why you transmit duplicates, and why they cannot be
>deleted.
>
>Thank you for your consideration.
>
>Clifford