Re: Concatenating an array into one string?
A. Sinan Unur
news:10976792...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net:
> I have an array I want to concatenate into one string without \n's in
> the code below all I get in the output for jobcat is 1111 why?
Sometimes I regain my faith in humanity ... Then I lose it again.
> $jobcat .= chomp($test[$i]);
Read perldoc -f chomp and see what chomp returns.
Sinan.
Jürgen Exner
Aaarrrggg
> Just replace the whole mess with a simple
>
> $jobcat = join '', chomp @test;
Of course this needs to be
chomp @test;
$jobcat = join '', @test;
Thou shalt not 'improve' code after pasting it into your news reader.
jue
Scott Bryce
> chomp @test;
I've got the Camel book open right in front of me, and I missed that!
I should have known that if I posted code, someone would find a better
way to do it!
Jürgen Exner
> Hi,
> I have an array I want to concatenate into one string without \n's in
> I correct this code?
You are missing:
use warnings; use strict;
> $test[0] = "one\n";
> $test[1] = "two\n";
> $test[2] = "three\n";
This is easier written as:
my @test = ("one\n", "two\n", "three\n");
> $jobcat = "";
No need to initialize $jobcat, Perl does it automatically for you when you
declare the variable:
my $jobcat;
> $i = 0;
> foreach(@test)
> {
> $jobcat .= chomp($test[$i]);
> $i++;
> }
Ouch, this whole loop hurts!
- What do you need the $i for when you are looping through each element
anyway?
- Why are you not using $_ but $test[$i]?
- why chomp() each element individually?
- why individually append the elements?
Just replace the whole mess with a simple
$jobcat = join '', chomp @test;
> print ("jobcat=$jobcat\n");
Ok, that line seems to be fine.
jue
Scott Bryce
> Hi,
> I have an array I want to concatenate into one string without \n's in the
> code below all I get in the output for jobcat is 1111 why? How do I correct
> this code?
>
> $test[0] = "one\n";
> $test[1] = "two\n";
> $test[2] = "three\n";
>
>
> $jobcat = "";
> $i = 0;
> foreach(@test)
> {
> $jobcat .= chomp($test[$i]);
> $i++;
> }
>
> print ("jobcat=$jobcat\n");
chomp returns the number of characters deleted.
-----------
use warnings;
use strict;
my @test;
$test[0] = "one\n";
$test[1] = "two\n";
$test[2] = "three\n";
my $jobcat = "";
foreach(@test)
{
chomp;
$jobcat .= $_;
}
print "jobcat = $jobcat\n";
--------------
use warnings;
use strict;
my @test;
$test[0] = "one\n";
$test[1] = "two\n";
$test[2] = "three\n";
my $jobcat = join '', @test;
$jobcat =~ s/\n//g;
print "$jobcat\n";
Jürgen Exner
> chomp($test[$i]);
> $jobcat .= $test[$i];
>
> But it's not a neat "Perl" solution.
Agree. A more perlish solution is
chomp @test;
$jobcat = join '', @test;
jue
Arndt Jonasson
anno...@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno Siegel) writes:
> Richard S Beckett <spik...@bigfoot.com> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
> [...]
>
> > Can someone please get a ruling from God or something as to which system we
> > should use across ALL newsgroups, so we can put this to bed once and for
> > all, 'cause I'm getting really pissed off by the anal twats who insist that
> > people must post at the bottom in one newsgroup, and then a different bunch
> > of anal twats who insist that you must post at the top in another group!
>
> I was going to explain this (once again), but seeing as you disqualify
> people with a firm opinion in the matter as "anal twats" put me out of
> the mood.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Shawn Corey
Scott Bryce wrote:
> And if someone is responding to different parts of your post, as I am
> doing here, how do you keep it all in context if it is all top posted?
>
I call it memory.
Scott Bryce wrote:
> And how do you know that there isn't more of the response farther down
> the page? You have to read the whole post to find that out.
There might be. I expect people to make their point first, then add
explanation. Posting to newsgroup is like writing for a newspaper: You
make your most important point first. If you don't, people will miss
your message.
--- Shawn
Tad McClellan
> Personally, I like top-posting
So long then.
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
ta...@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
Shawn Corey
>>Personally, I like top-posting
>
>
>
> So long then.
That's what I was saying all along: if you can't tolerate people being
people, don't read newsgroups.
--- Shawn
Shawn Corey
> Splendid idea. Before asking a question, slap the people you want to
> ask in the face a few times. They'll double their efforts to give
> you good advice.
>
> Anno
Actually find their gems of wisdom amongst their complains is an
interesting intellectual puzzle. The entertainment value of this
newsgroup is half the reason I read it.
--- Shawn
Charlton Wilbur
SC> Personally, I like top-posting
SC> Tad McClellan wrote:
>> So long then.
SC> That's what I was saying all along: if you can't tolerate
SC> people being people, don't read newsgroups.
Actually, no, you missed Tad's point. He just added you to his killfile.
The problem with the viewpoint that says that everyone should do as he
or she wishes is that the clueful regulars here (almost?) universally
dislike top-posting. By top-posting, you mark yourself as a newbie;
by persisting in top-posting, you mark yourself as an ass. Newbies
get help; asses get killfiled.
Now, if you don't *care* that the most knowledgeable people in the
group are not seeing your posts, that's not a problem. But the vast
majority of the posters here are looking for help, and it's just
stupid for them to do something that reduces their chances of getting
the help they need.
Part of "people being people" involves learning to conform to the
social customs of the group you are trying to interact with, and one
of the social customs of this group is that top-posting is
unacceptable. Sure, you can wear cutoff jeans and a ratty T-shirt to
work; if you do that, and your workplace has a social custom of
wearing ties, you won't have a job for long. So it is with top-posting here.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> I'd really like an answer of why you all don't think top-posting is
> proper netiquette instead of just "well that's just the way it
> is...".
I'm not interested at all in another such explanation, since it has
been explained here a vast number of times, over and over again. The
link in the posting guidelines for this group is one of many web pages
that explains the rational behind it:
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html
OTOH, even if there claims to be a lot of people with the opposite
"opinion", I for one have not seen one single similar document that
explains the rational why top posting would be the best posting style
in newsgroups and mailing lists. Of course, a lot of people with the
default Outlook settings get defensive when asked to not top post, but
that can't reasonably be considered a founded opinion.
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
Paul Lalli
news:KLbbd.87$dI6.50@trnddc03...
> Just replace the whole mess with a simple
>
> $jobcat = join '', chomp @test;
This, of course, contains exactly the same error that the original did.
chomp does not return the modified strings.
Paul Lalli
Shawn Corey
>>$jobcat = "";
>
>
> No need to initialize $jobcat, Perl does it automatically for you when you
> declare the variable:
>
> my $jobcat;
No it doesn't, notice the difference?
--- Shawn
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $not_initialized;
print "not initialized = $not_initialized\n";
my $initialized = '';
print "initialized = $initialized\n";
__END__
Tad McClellan
> Tad McClellan wrote:
>> Please help me learn what you know by naming one or two
>> Big 8 newsgroups where top-posting is preferred.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Why are you limiting this to 8 when there are thousands of newsgroups
> available?
http://www.newbie.net/tgos/newbie/newsgroups2.html
There _are_ thousands of newsgroups in the Big 8 Hierarchy. :-)
(I put the "Big 8" in there as I will not be convinced by an
example in the alt.* hierarchy.
)
Tad McClellan
[ attributions missing yet again. This hurts your credibility when
lecturing about netiquette...
]
> Top posting is good in some people's OPINION,
Please name a Big 8 discussion newsgroup where such an opinion is held.
I'd like to go see for myself.
> Why keep jumping down the throat of newbies,
> insisting that they don't top post?
So that people might read and answer their question rather
than ignoring their question.
> They go to a different newsgroup, and
> get blasted for not top posting.
We need an example of such a newsgroup.
I, for one, think you are making it up.
Prove me wrong.
Paul Lalli
news:10mthab...@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul Lalli wrote:
>
> > So your theory is that the posting conventions of this group should
> > default to the most helpful to the people asking questions (who are
more
> > likely to read only the followups to their own post) rather than the
> > people answering questions
>
> What about responses that involve line by line explanations of code,
> such as the A Newbie Question thread from this AM? Top posting would
> benefit neither the person asking the question, nor the person
> answering. Especially, as is often the case, further clarification may
> be needed about certain lines of code.
I heartily agree. I was referring to his assertion that top posting is
okay because of "memory."
Paul Lalli
Michele Dondi
<spik...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In other newsgroups they much prefer people to top post. This means that if
[snip]
>As long as the pertinent information is there, who is to say which style is
>correct?
HUH?!? In all fairness and earnestness to you I can't think of any
newsgroup where "they much prefer people to top post". I know of ngs
where top posting is *tolerated*, but that's a different story. And
there are amateurish, low-profile ngs where most partecipants hardly
know what top-posting is at all, let alone possible alternatives, or
tend to use bloated news clients that do not encourage properly
quoting relevant material, so *tolerating* it is "in their genetic
code", so to say.
Said this, I for one can hardly think of a more logical way to ease my
readers' understanding than properly quoting and avoiding top-posting.
Why don't you make a tiny experiment? Try to rewrite this thread as if
everybody had top-posted... ever heard about exponential growth?
The fact that, loosely speaking, information is becoming cheaper and
cheaper is not an excuse for abusing redundant unwanted and useless
bunches of it. Period!
But there's more to it: each ng (or ml, or forum or whatever it may
be) is a community and an implicit or explicit general consensus on
the accepted behavioural rules adopted there is made by the people who
take part to it, and it is natural the the most helpful people there
have a larger influence in this sense.
In any case it is natural that if a newbie or whoever *wants* to
receive help, and this is a good reason to e.g. post to a technical
ng, then they *must* at least to some degree conform to those
behavioural rules. If they don't know (about) them, they must accept
being taught to respect them.
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
Abigail
MCMXCIII in <URL:news:ydtbd.26011$hk6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
\\
\\ Do whatever you like. Nobody owns a newsgroup. Those that don't like
\\ what you do can skip the message. Nobody is forcing them to read it!
*PLOINK*
Abigail
--
perl -le 's[$,][join$,,(split$,,($!=85))[(q[0006143730380126152532042307].
q[41342211132019313505])=~m[..]g]]e and y[yIbp][HJkP] and print'
Jürgen Exner
Yep, just like I pointed out in my own follow-up posting.
jue
Jürgen Exner
> When a newbie asks for help, by definition he's a newbie, and doesn't
> know a lot of things that seem obvious to more seasoned hackers. So
Yep, and most people won't have a problem with that. If you are new to Perl
then you probably don't know where to find the documentation, the FAQ, etc.
So you are being pointed to them. Anything wrong with that?
Actually, you are right, there is something wrong with this. If a newbie
would have read the NG for two weeks before posting for the first time, just
as good nettiquette requests, then he would have found the documentation and
the FAQ already. They are really mentioned often enough!
> when the first thing they do is jump down his throat for top posting,
Which of course has nothing to do with being new to Perl but is a violation
of common Usenet ettiquette.
Are you claiming that being new to Perl justifies (or even just excuses) to
ignore or even to deliberately violate nettiquette?
jue
Alan J. Flavell
A: certainly not!
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Tad McClellan wrote:
> (I put the "Big 8" in there as I will not be convinced by an
> example in the alt.* hierarchy.
Nah: if you want examples of inconsiderate and slovenly posting
style, the place to go is the hierarchy that starts with the dominant
vendor name.
But even there, there are FAQs recommending the usenet-traditional
snip-and-interleave style, and some people who follow that style.
all the best
(and for the others, of course, the killfile awaits)
Q: should I quote the entire previous discussion and put
my answer on top?
Abigail
MCMXCIII in <URL:news:cklfc8$3ms$1...@newshost.mot.com>:
== > One of the prime sins to avoid is top-posting and fully quoting someone
== > else's post without actually referring to any part of it.
== >
== > Have fun learning.
== >
== > Sinan.
==
== One small question about this...
==
== In some news groups, they get upset if you top post, because they like the
== entire thread to be visible in each post from the top down. This means that
== you can pick any individual post, read from the top, and get the gist of the
== entire thread.
==
== In other newsgroups they much prefer people to top post. This means that if
== you've been reading the thread from the beginning, you don't have to trawl
== through everything that you've already read to find the latest comment, as
== it's there right at the top. If you do need to read back, then the
== information is still there.
Really? Which newsgroup would be that? I've been reading Usenet for
over 16 years, and I've yet to encounter a newsgroup where the consensus
is that top-posting is preferred.
If there was any merit in top-posting being useful, we would have seen
widespread use of it *before* webwowsers like Netscape and IE provided
a shitty interface to newsgroups.
== Both systems have their merits, and I can understand why the people in some
== groups opt for one style, and the people in other groups opt for the other
== style.
==
== However, if a person reads many newsgroups, it's a very difficult thing for
== them to know whether they're supposed to top post or bottom post in a
== particular newsgroup.
Why? One shouldn't post in a newsgroup before getting acquainted with its
way of dealing with things.
== As long as the pertinent information is there, who is to say which style is
== correct?
I do.
== Can someone please get a ruling from God or something as to which system we
== should use across ALL newsgroups, so we can put this to bed once and for
== all, 'cause I'm getting really pissed off by the anal twats who insist that
== people must post at the bottom in one newsgroup, and then a different bunch
== of anal twats who insist that you must post at the top in another group!
I don't need supernatural beings like Santa Claus, gods or elves to decide
what's good for me. I will do that myself. As for topposters, most of them
I throw in my killfile, one the first encounter of a toppost. And noone gets
out of the killfile once in there.
Abigail
--
echo "==== ======= ==== ======"|perl -pes/=/J/|perl -pes/==/us/|perl -pes/=/t/\
|perl -pes/=/A/|perl -pes/=/n/|perl -pes/=/o/|perl -pes/==/th/|perl -pes/=/e/\
|perl -pes/=/r/|perl -pes/=/P/|perl -pes/=/e/|perl -pes/==/rl/|perl -pes/=/H/\
|perl -pes/=/a/|perl -pes/=/c/|perl -pes/=/k/|perl -pes/==/er/|perl -pes/=/./;
A. Sinan Unur
@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> True. Nobody is forcing anyone of us experts to answer a message. If
>> you want an answer that isn't "blind leading blind", however, you
>> should try to at least understand a bit of the culture here.
> Considering the number of answers that are simply "Read the
> documentation," I don't expect the experts here to answer any
> question. The arrogance of this response assumes that everyone _knows_
> that perldoc is on their system and they can find the appropriate
> document by pure dumb luck as there is no good search mechanism in
> perldoc. And even if it had one, finding good responses to any search
> requires finding the magic words that trigger the response. Try it in
> Google, for ever good response you get, you also get tens of thousands
> of responses of irrelevant material.
That is utter nonsense. Indeed, when I first installed ActivePerl on my
Windows computer, I was not immediately aware of perldoc. On the other
hand, it took no searching to find the "Documentation" link in the
ActivePerl program group in my start menu. Clicking on that link gave me an
html page with a complete table of contents.
I am assuming anyone who wants to program knows enough of his/her system to
at least look in the equivalent of that location.
> Many of those responding forget what it is like to learn something new.
Oh no ... I remember putting some work into it myself, however, when I was
trying to learn something new.
Sinan
Jürgen Exner
>
> $jobcat = join '', map { /(.*)/ } @test;
> or
> $jobcat = join '', map { substr $_, 0, -1 } @test; # better have
> newlines!
Or (if you don't mind the added spaces)
$jobcat = "@test";
jue
Anno Siegel
Well, that's the point of posting code, isn't it.
Anno
Charlton Wilbur
RSB> Can someone please get a ruling from God or something as to
RSB> which system we should use across ALL newsgroups, so we can
RSB> put this to bed once and for all,
From RFC 1855, which is about the closest you're likely to find to a
ruling from God regarding newsgroups:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
Shoddy Microsoft software (and other shoddy software, but Microsoft is
by far the most widely used shoddy software) has defaults that
discourage bottom-posting, and as a result in a large part of the
business world top-posting is the norm. This is regrettable overall,
though often you can tell whether you are corresponding with someone
who has a clue by noticing whether he top-posts or bottom-posts in his
replies. There are also plugins available for Outlook and Outlook
Express that have sensible defaults for bottom-posting.
Further, good netiquette requires that you lurk in a group for at
least a week before posting, and if you do that, it should be trivial
to determine whether that group prefers top-posting or bottom-posting.
comp.lang.perl.misc strongly prefers bottom-posting, and if you expect
your posts to be read by people who have a clue, you would do well to
bottom-post; consistent top-posting *will* get you added to scorefiles
and killfiles. This is reinforced in the Posting Guidelines and by
the reminders to new posters; you may also note that people who
top-post out of ignorance are treated far more kindly than those who
grow belligerent over it.
Michele Dondi
<spik...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>If only!
>
>I think you'll have to agree that being polite is a rare occurrence in this
>ng!
Sorry, but I won't agree, though, for plainly my personal experience
is that it's just the opposite! I've *always*, I say *always* received
kind and helpful advice here, no matter what misunderstanding there
may have been. And just think that if I read my first posts here, I
feel like smiling. Or crying! ;-)
>When a newbie asks for help, by definition he's a newbie, and doesn't know a
>lot of things that seem obvious to more seasoned hackers. So when the first
>thing they do is jump down his throat for top posting, it gets my goat!
They may have good reasons for jumping down his throat, even if in
practice it is rarely so (they just *tell* him not to top post, which
is quite different!) However there are basically two possibilities:
one is to refuse the advice and insist on top posting which most
probably means refusing any on-topic advice/answer from the most
expert contributors, and the other one is to accept this fact, that
one has to quote properly to get the answer to the question he
asked... which seems to me the most intelligent choice... provided
that what he/she was *really* interested in the first place is getting
that answer as opposed to fighting and arguing for days, months, years
on a pointless subject...
Michele
--
Liberta' va cercando, ch'e' si' cara,
Come sa chi per lei vita rifiuta.
[Dante Alighieri, Purg. I, 71-72]
I am my own country - United States Confederate of Me!
[Pennywise, "My own country"]
Sam Holden
Shawn Corey <shawn...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Tad McClellan wrote:
>> Please help me learn what you know by naming one or two
>> Big 8 newsgroups where top-posting is preferred.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Why are you limiting this to 8 when there are thousands of newsgroups
> population.
"Big 8" not 8.
comp.*
humanities.*
misc.*
news.*
rec.*
sci.*
soc.*
talk.*
--
Sam Holden
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Cool! I remember someone using this as his own .sig in some ng I
follow...
Michele
--
>It's because the universe was programmed in C++.
No, no, it was programmed in Forth. See Genesis 1:12:
"And the earth brought Forth ..."
- Robert Israel in sci.math, thread "Why numbers?"
Randal L. Schwartz
Richard> In other newsgroups they much prefer people to top post.
Name one.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Scott Bryce
> I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
> certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
Fascist!?!?!
There are a lot of people here who are very knowledgeable when it comes
to Perl. They don't have to be here. They have other, more productive
things they could be doing with their time. They ask that you respect
their time by using a convention that makes posts easier to read. That
is fascist?
Is waiting in line for your turn fascist? Or any of the other things we
are asked to do to show respect for other's time?
If you don't want to play nice, that's fine. Just don't be surprised
when you find yourself playing alone.
Michele Dondi
Siegel) wrote:
>> Do whatever you like. Nobody owns a newsgroup. Those that don't like
>> what you do can skip the message. Nobody is forcing them to read it!
>
>Splendid idea. Before asking a question, slap the people you want to
>ask in the face a few times. They'll double their efforts to give
>you good advice.
I think thay the OP's claimed opinion was carrying along with itself
an abundant dose of sarcasm. Did you read the last line of his post?
Michele
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -lp
BEGIN{*ARGV=do{open $_,q,<,,\$/;$_}}s z^z seek DATA,11,$[;($,
=ucfirst<DATA>)=~s x .*x q^~ZEX69l^^q,^2$;][@,xe.$, zex,s e1e
q 1~BEER XX1^q~4761rA67thb ~eex ,s aba m,P..,,substr$&,$.,age
__END__
Jürgen Exner
> Scott Bryce wrote:
>> And if someone is responding to different parts of your post, as I am
>> doing here, how do you keep it all in context if it is all top
>> posted?
>
> I call it memory.
You don't know much about Usenet and it's technical workings, are you?
Usenet is an asynchronous medium. "Earlier" posts may very well be
propagated to some servers much later or never or being deleted for one
reason or other.
If _you_ as the poster don't provide proper context chances are people may
not be able to understand what you are talking about because they never had
a chance to learn the context.
jue
Tad McClellan
> comp.lang.perl.misc strongly prefers bottom-posting, and if you expect
> your posts to be read by people who have a clue, you would do well to
> bottom-post; consistent top-posting *will* get you added to scorefiles
> and killfiles. This is reinforced in the Posting Guidelines
The Posting Guidelines were derived from scorefiles.
I had several scorefiles from regulars who either posted them
or sent them in response to my email request.
When I found that people got killfiled for doing something, I put
a "don't do something" bullet in the guidelines.
After working through them all, the guidelines had been written.
:-)
> you may also note that people who
> top-post out of ignorance are treated far more kindly than those who
> grow belligerent over it.
My most populous scoring category is "know-it-all whiners" who tell
us we've been doing it wrong all of these years and that we should
all switch to their way instead.
The 1st (top)post goes right by with no harm done, it is a 2nd whiney
post that saves my time, as I can just zap out a scorefile entry
and be done with it.
Anno Siegel
> I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
> certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
Some countries go so far as to force their hapless citizens by law
to drive on one paricular side of the road. Fascists! Bomb them,
I say.
Anno
Michele Dondi
<w...@what.where> wrote:
>I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
>certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
BULLSHIT! Don't abuse words you probably don't have the slightest
comprehension about.
But seriously this (Godwin's law) painting one's rhetorical
opponents as Nazis is an odious and verminous ploy normally used,
as here, to mask the intellectual bankruptcy of one's arguments.
- Robin Chapman in sci.math
(couldn't find better words to express about your idiotic cmt)
>Is it an ego thing? Is it a subconscious impression that people who
>top-post inherently are ignoring or dismissing what you write?
No, it's not! For, for one thing, they're not dismissing what you
write. On the contrary they're spreading all over *unnecessary* parts
of it.
It's just the desire (that can become an actual *need*, taking into
account traffic/time considerations) to keep communication
*efficient*.
>I'd really like an answer of why you all don't think top-posting is
>proper netiquette instead of just "well that's just the way it is...".
Because netiquette requires not to top-post. I can imagine rare
situations in which deliberately top-posting could be sensible. Most
of time it's just saving a tiny percent on the writer's part and
making potential readers waste a huge percent of their own
time/resources.
It's a matter of asking a question and deserving an answer, but
avoiding to take care of helping others to help us.
PS: just to make a little experiment, I'm posting this also in
top-posted version. Be honest: is it easiear to read?!?
Michele Dondi
BULLSHIT! Don't abuse words you probably don't have the slightest
comprehension about.
But seriously this (Godwin's law) painting one's rhetorical
opponents as Nazis is an odious and verminous ploy normally used,
as here, to mask the intellectual bankruptcy of one's arguments.
- Robin Chapman in sci.math
(couldn't find better words to express about your idiotic cmt)
No, it's not! For, for one thing, they're not dismissing what you
write. On the contrary they're spreading all over *unnecessary* parts
of it.
It's just the desire (that can become an actual *need*, taking into
account traffic/time considerations) to keep communication
*efficient*.
Because netiquette requires not to top-post. I can imagine rare
situations in which deliberately top-posting could be sensible. Most
of time it's just saving a tiny percent on the writer's part and
making potential readers waste a huge percent of their own
time/resources.
It's a matter of asking a question and deserving an answer, but
avoiding to take care of helping others to help us.
PS: don't make yourself a dumbass by abusing a word like "fascist".
Michele
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:32:03 -0700, "Austin P. So (Hae Jin)"
<w...@what.where> wrote:
>
>Michele Dondi wrote:
>
>> I can't really think of any reasonable being thinking of top-posting
>> as convenient, but for anyone using (what I consider) a (broken)
>> client that quotes the whole message without distingushing marks[*].
>
>When the content of the top-post summarizes or introduces something that
>brings the thread or the responses into a more global context, then I
>don't see why it is wrong, particularly when a point by point discussion
>is not necessary.
>
>But the attitude of the posters here brings up another question:
>
>I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
>certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
>
>In fact, I would have to say it is utterly ironic.
>
>Is it an ego thing? Is it a subconscious impression that people who
>top-post inherently are ignoring or dismissing what you write?
>
>What is it?
>
>I'd really like an answer of why you all don't think top-posting is
>proper netiquette instead of just "well that's just the way it is...".
>
>Austin
--
Se, nella notte in cui concepi' il duce,
Donna Rosa, toccata da divina luce,
avesse dato al fabbro predappiano
invece della fica il deretano,
l'avrebbe presa in culo quella sera
Rosa sola e non l'Italia intera.
- Poesia antifascista
Tad McClellan
>
>> Most people consider it polite to inform new people about
>> actions which will, if they are repeated, cause possibly
>> unwanted harmful side effects - in this case a large chunk
>> of the most knowledgable posters not answering your questions.
>
> If only!
>
> I think you'll have to agree that being polite is a rare occurrence in this
> ng!
Yes, there is an endless supply of the top-posters that you
must be referring to.
The angst is a symptom, it is not the disease.
Helgi Briem
>As for topposters, most of themI throw in my killfile, one the
>first encounter of a toppost. And noone gets
>out of the killfile once in there.
Noone? Who's "noone"? And how did he get out of your
killfile? I thought no one got out of the killfile once in there.
Noone must know somethine no one else does. Bastard.
--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is
"Don't worry about it, son. God is just messing with your head."
Arndt Jonasson
Michele Dondi <bik....@tiscalinet.it> writes:
> On 14 Oct 2004 13:59:32 +0200, Arndt Jonasson <do-no...@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>
> >A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> >Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> >A: Top-posting.
> >Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
> Cool! I remember someone using this as his own .sig in some ng I
> follow...
Yes, that's where I got it - I don't know who wrote it.
Tad McClellan
>>
>>
>> So long then.
>
> That's what I was saying all along:
At this point I have a vanishingly small interest in what you say.
> if you can't tolerate people being
> people, don't read newsgroups.
If you can't tolerate people being people, don't go to Disneyland.
In article <1995Nov9.1...@netlabs.com>, lw...@netlabs.com
(Larry Wall) wrote: ...
[snip] I view a programming language as a place to be
explored, like Disneyland. You don't need to have a lot of preparation
to explore a theme park. You do have to go along with the crowd
control measures, though. In a sense, each ride has its own
prerequisites--if you cut in line, you risk getting tossed out of the
park.
What we have here in this newsgroup is a failure in crowd control.
Reading the FAQ is like staying in line--it's something you should
learn in kindergarten. Usenet needs a better kindergarten.
You can try arguing that the idea of waiting in lines is a bad idea,
but you are not likely to convert the way of the thousands to the
way of the one.
The numbers are just too overwhelming. It is futile.
Your only choices are to wait in lines, or to not go to places that
make you wait in lines.
Michele Dondi
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>The problem with the viewpoint that says that everyone should do as he
>or she wishes is that the clueful regulars here (almost?) universally
>dislike top-posting. By top-posting, you mark yourself as a newbie;
>by persisting in top-posting, you mark yourself as an ass. Newbies
>get help; asses get killfiled.
Initial help possibly including the advice not to top post. The key
point is this: it *does* constitute help. OT but help to get on-topic
help.
Shawn Corey
> That is utter nonsense. Indeed, when I first installed ActivePerl on my
> Windows computer, I was not immediately aware of perldoc. On the other
> hand, it took no searching to find the "Documentation" link in the
> ActivePerl program group in my start menu. Clicking on that link gave me an
> html page with a complete table of contents.
Not everyone runs Activetsate.
--- Shawn
Shawn Corey
> I hope nobody expects that kind of response to be all top posted!
I don't. I never said top-posting is the *ONLY* way to post; I said to
be tolerant to those who do!
--- Shawn
Scott Bryce
> OK by me, he's already in my killfile.
With Tad on your killfile, there isn't much point in participating here.
Koos Pol
>>As for topposters, most of themI throw in my killfile, one the
>>first encounter of a toppost. And noone gets
>>out of the killfile once in there.
>
> Noone? Who's "noone"? And how did he get out of your
> killfile? I thought no one got out of the killfile once in
> there.
>
> Noone must know somethine no one else does. Bastard.
I'll bet he's the twit cousin of General Failure...
--
KP
43rd Law of Computing: "Anything that can go wr
fortune: Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Helgi Briem
<shawn...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> Actually, no, you missed Tad's point. He just added you to his killfile.
>
>OK by me, he's already in my killfile.
You stupid little man. He is probably the most knowledgable
poster to this newsgroup and certainly the most helpful.
You just cut yourself off from one of the best sources of Perl
information available. That's called "cutting off your nose
to spite your face".
>> Part of "people being people" involves learning to conform to the
>> social customs of the group you are trying to interact with, and one
>> of the social customs of this group is that top-posting is
>> unacceptable. Sure, you can wear cutoff jeans and a ratty T-shirt to
>> work; if you do that, and your workplace has a social custom of
>> wearing ties, you won't have a job for long. So it is with top-posting here.
>
>Missing the point. I never said top-posting is the *ONLY* way to post; I
>said to be tolerant to those who do. In case you haven't notice, most of
>my posts to the group have been bottom-posted.
Most of us tolerate top-posters once or twice. Those that refuse
to change their ways after a request or two are usually obnoxious
twits not worth bothering with.
--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
A. Sinan Unur
Precisely why you should not have snipped the rest of my post:
> I am assuming anyone who wants to program knows enough of his/her
> system to at least look in the equivalent of that location.
So, on my FreeBSD test bed running on a trusty old P133, I know to do
man perl
which then shows me a table of contents.
Since I don't have an extra grand lying around, I do not have shiny new
Mac box, so I can't describe to you where you can find the documentation
on your own computer, but I am willing to assume that if you started a
shell and typed
man perl
you would get the same table of contents.
The whole point is, if people who do not know where documentation gets
installed on their _own_ computers are choosing not to know and learn.
That is rude.
Now, there is nothing anyone can do to help those with IQs below the room
temperature.
http://www.pcmag.com/print_article/0,1761,a=49268,00.asp
Sinan
Ben Morrow
Quoth Helgi Briem <HelgiB...@hotmail.com>:
> On 14 Oct 2004 21:46:10 GMT, Abigail <abi...@abigail.nl> wrote:
>
> >As for topposters, most of themI throw in my killfile, one the
> >first encounter of a toppost. And noone gets
> >out of the killfile once in there.
>
> Noone? Who's "noone"?
The transformation of compound nouns from two words to a hyphenated
compound to a single word as they become more naturalised is a perfectly
well established trait in English. Take 'nobody': it was 'no body'
in the 14th century, 'no-body' in the 18th, and 'nobody' in the 19th
[OED].
People who try to restrict the natural evolution of languages through
ignorance really get on my nerves :).
Ben
--
We do not stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing.
b...@morrow.me.uk
Austin P. So (Hae Jin)
Seriously, do you honestly believe that this is proper analogy? Laws
created to preserve the life and safety of citizens are placed on the
same scale as the maintenance of "stylistic merit"?
Please.
Hmmm...that reminds me:
====
Reuters(AP)
Internet - Five people were killed and 21 people suffered brain
aneurysms when a when a feckless top-poster continued his rampage on
comp.lang.perl.misc. Witnesses say that top-poster B. Shite of unknown
location started posting only a month back seeking innocent advice on
homework questions. A series of concerted top-posting infractions were
later initiated which were clearly designed to upset the delicate
structural balance in this little gated community. "I knew there wuz
sumthin bout that guy when he first came here", said F. Ego. Police are
currently trying to locate the whereabouts of B. Shite.
====
Austin
Austin P. So (Hae Jin)
> [Note: top-posted version, for illustrative purposes only!]
I'm sorry, this kind of top-posting lacks any sort of stylistic sense.
In short, your illustration sucks big time...
> BULLSHIT!
Oh my!
> Don't abuse words you probably don't have the slightest
> comprehension about.
Sure sure...maybe then you shouldn't blindly scream out "bullshit",
unless you actually know what you are talking about?
You see...I occasionally top-post, but I would never do it unless it
made sense.
Of course, no one should ever reply to a post point by point by
top-posting, unless you can summarize it in one thought. And if you are
redirecting the exchange, then it also makes sense to top-post as an
introduction.
> But seriously this (Godwin's law) painting one's rhetorical
> opponents as Nazis is an odious and verminous ploy normally used,
> as here, to mask the intellectual bankruptcy of one's arguments.
> - Robin Chapman in sci.math
>
> (couldn't find better words to express about your idiotic cmt)
I liked BULLSHIT better...
Sorry...your quote of a quote on the application of "Godwin's law", is
in of itself bankrupt because more often than not, people like you
invoke it as an easy excuse to get out an argument.
And generally speaking, people who wave placards such as yourself are
often relatively new to the issue about which they are waving the
placard for and usually don't possess the fortitude for independent
thought. My guess you haven't been posting for more than 5 years...but I
could be wrong...
> No, it's not! For, for one thing, they're not dismissing what you
> write. On the contrary they're spreading all over *unnecessary* parts
> of it.
Like I said...this is not a good example of top-posting...
> It's just the desire (that can become an actual *need*, taking into
> account traffic/time considerations) to keep communication
> *efficient*.
There is "efficiency", and then there is blind adherence to what is
perceived as "efficiency" by those who are unable to understand the
concept and so must utilize a rulebook in order to organize their
thoughts in an efficient manner ("remember...keep your writing between
the lines!").
Spending time deciphering code takes time, but you are implying that a
top-post would *dramatically* increase the time spent on writing out a
reply? Are you serious?
> Because netiquette requires not to top-post.
Oh...I see..."requires", eh?
> I can imagine rare
> situations in which deliberately top-posting could be sensible.
Sure...my point exactly. But that wasn't the argument here.
> Most
> of time it's just saving a tiny percent on the writer's part and
> making potential readers waste a huge percent of their own
> time/resources.
You're kidding right? You've got to elaborate on this one.
> It's a matter of asking a question and deserving an answer, but
> avoiding to take care of helping others to help us.
>
> PS: don't make yourself a dumbass by abusing a word like "fascist".
"Dumbass"? Pehehehehee~
Well, dear, if you actually know the definition of "fascism" then maybe
you can tell me how I've "abused" the definition?
Austin
David H. Adler
>
>
> Anno Siegel wrote:
>> Austin P. So (Hae Jin) <w...@what.where> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
>>>I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
>>>certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
>
>> Some countries go so far as to force their hapless citizens by law
>> to drive on one paricular side of the road. Fascists! Bomb them,
>> I say.
>
> Seriously, do you honestly believe that this is proper analogy? Laws
> created to preserve the life and safety of citizens are placed on the
> same scale as the maintenance of "stylistic merit"?
No, I believe that was probably something we like to call "sarcasm". :-)
dha
--
David H. Adler - <d...@panix.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Note that reversing a cable at BOTH ends is likely to result in perfect
operation of the hardware, which is not the aim of this exercise.
- "How to Destroy Your Computer", <http://www.dansdata.com/sbs3.htm>
Ala Qumsieh
> Both systems have their merits, and I can understand why the people in some
> groups opt for one style, and the people in other groups opt for the other
> style.
I can't. I just don't see how top-posting is better than the
alternative. Nobody taught me how to reply to posts, but years before I
started frequenting newsgroups, I developed practically the same
strategy for replying to email from students of courses I used to TA. It
just makes sense. When a student sends an email with a few questions:
Q: What is A?
Q: Why is B different from C?
Q: Explain D.
top-posting a reply to all questions at once simply creates unnecessary
confusion. The best strategy is to answer each question independently by
quoting each question, and posting its answer just below it.
IMHO, of course.
--Ala
Michele Dondi
So what? If one runs a self-compiled Perl distro, he will for sure be
skilled enough to find (at leat an entry point to) the relevant info.
If one runs a binary distro under cygwin he will similarly be used to
one of *NIX's most typical advantages over so-called-user-friendly
OSen: documentation! It won't take long for them to get to 'man perl'
and hence to all the rest. All this is true so much more of anyone
running any sort of perl under any sort of *NIX.
I really can't think of anyone running a thing called perl and failing
to have an easy way to the documentation.
Michele Dondi
<shawn...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> I hope nobody expects that kind of response to be all top posted!
>
>I don't. I never said top-posting is the *ONLY* way to post; I said to
>be tolerant to those who do!
In fact they *are* tolerant. It is *not* tolerated that they *insist*
on doing so.
There are basically two kinds of people in this regard: those who
top-post because they are newcomers to USENET in general and hardly
know that you can organize your article in a better way and when
advised not to do so *do* follow the advice maybe for convenience (but
then first or later realize the inherent advantages), and those who,
whatever the (supposed) reason they may have for top-posting, insist
that they must be free to do so and give names to those who say the
contrary, etc.
So you're saying that top-posting should be tolerated without even any
mention about it, that is with no limitation, including the case of
having to do with someone in the second category. But then to avoid
some pointless discussion with arrogant newbies you would miss the big
advantage of educating the vast majority of good-willed, well-mannered
newbies. All in all in the long term this would imply a decay in the
quality of the information exchange on the ng.
Michele Dondi
<shawn...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Actually, no, you missed Tad's point. He just added you to his killfile.
>
>OK by me, he's already in my killfile.
Sounds suicidal to me...
If I think to people I'm searching the help of in this ng, names that
immediately spring to mind are Tad McLellan, Tassilo Parseval,
Abigail, Uri Guttman, Brian McCauley, Anno Siegel, Ben Morrow, Juergen
Exner (hoping not to forget anyone and not to misspell any of these
names, but I doubt so!)
Oh, and when he was active here I used to read nearly all posts by
Benjamin Goldberg, even if the subject didn't catch my attention
first. Just loved his style, but this is another story...
>Missing the point. I never said top-posting is the *ONLY* way to post; I
>said to be tolerant to those who do. In case you haven't notice, most of
In fact they *are* tolerant. It is *not* tolerated that they *insist*
on doing so.
Anno Siegel
>
>
> Anno Siegel wrote:
> > Austin P. So (Hae Jin) <w...@what.where> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
> >>I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
> >>certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
>
> > Some countries go so far as to force their hapless citizens by law
> > to drive on one paricular side of the road. Fascists! Bomb them,
> > I say.
>
> Seriously, do you honestly believe that this is proper analogy? Laws
> created to preserve the life and safety of citizens are placed on the
> same scale as the maintenance of "stylistic merit"?
Yes, it's a good analogy.
Foremost, the analogy shows that there can be massive advantages in
preferring, even enforcing, a rule that may look arbitrary to someone
not acquainted with the territory. That is independent of the serious-
ness of consequences if the rule is broken.
Secondly, driving on one side of the road is not to make traffic safer,
it is to make traffic possible. Roads would probably be safer in the
permanent congestion if everyone drove where they liked. Similarly,
deciding on one posting style makes long exchanges on Usenet *possible*.
A thread where people alternately top-post and interleave is unreadable.
That's more than stylistic merit, it's functionality.
The analogy is bad only in that it assumes the choice is between equally
well-suited alternatives. The left and right side of the road are in
fact equally well suited for traffic -- myths about the sword-hand side
discounted.
In contrast, interleaved (and bottom-) posting follow the flow of
reading from top to bottom, whereas top posting goes against it.
All cultures, living or dead, read and write top to bottom, and there
are reasons for that too. Try to make, literally, heads and tails of
a posting that contains two or three top-posted followups. It isn't
as bad as a mixed thread, but it gets pretty bad soon.
Interleaved posting is continuable, in the sense that you can
continuously delete and add material and still provide enough
context so that every posting in the thread can be read in one
go. No other style offers that.
> Hmmm...that reminds me:
>
> ====
> Reuters(AP)
[well-written, but badly aimed parody snipped]
Anno
Michele Dondi
<w...@what.where> wrote:
>Michele Dondi wrote:
>> [Note: top-posted version, for illustrative purposes only!]
>
>I'm sorry, this kind of top-posting lacks any sort of stylistic sense.
Granted! I deliberately exaggerated in that direction: this was meant
as a provocation.
While we're at it, you may have answered the non-top-posted version
instead...
>In short, your illustration sucks big time...
I'm not contending this, as it definitely sucks, the key point being
IMHO that while it sucks particularly hard, it simply magnifies the
fact that top-posting sucks per se, *always*.
>> BULLSHIT!
>
>Oh my!
>
>> Don't abuse words you probably don't have the slightest
>> comprehension about.
>
>Sure sure...maybe then you shouldn't blindly scream out "bullshit",
>unless you actually know what you are talking about?
Of course out of context it doesn't make much sense. I guess you *did*
understand that I was referring to this claim of yours:
HJ>I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
HJ>done a certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
Now, think what you like, you're *abusing* that word. My cmt can't be
but a repeated, shouted "BULLSHIT"! As one who tries to enforce the
good practice of quoting properly I've felt personally *insulted* by
your words, for there's nothing, I say *nothing* I hate like fascism.
For one thing is to enforce something that is quite natural to regard
as a good practice (possibly including in this the good will to please
those whose help we're looking for) and one thing is to enforce the
overwhelming of men over men, which constitutes a fascists' thing.
Please let me explain: I live in a country (Italy) in which there's
people who only yesterday were still saying "boia chi molla!", and now
they are at the governement.
In my country, in my city, in my life we all live the effects of
what's been wittily described as "fascismo discreto della borghesia",
and things are getting worse and worse.
Last year a man, a father of a young girl, was *murdered* by a family
of self-declared fascists who used to go round with a dog called
Rommel, a family of motherfuckers who kept their house full of fascist
symbols and objects of all kinds. And I bet they won't get one tenth
of the punishment that is given to, say, squatters prosecuted for
disorders during demonstrations.
A group of comrades is being prosecuted, and risks severe (possibly
detentive) penalties for having done an act of Resistance on the 25th
of April, the day we celebrate the Liberation of our country, the day
celebrating Resistance itself. For having prevented a group of
criminals from performing a provocative insulting act of the maximum
severity: bringing flowers to were Mussolini was hung! But police
didn't take care of stopping them from doing such a crime: they
preferred to protect the poor boys from the rage of the mob!!
This very summer there have been many stabbings and other aggressions
by nazis. And it seems that they have if not excatly "protection" from
the police, at least they're being reserved a preferred treatment. It
seems at all effects that there's a precise political will to suppress
the seed and the breath of Resistance in this city, and in this
country.
I could go on and on ad nauseam with the revolting things going on in
my country, not to mention the human lives, the tortures, the blood
poured in the name of fascism.
>You see...I occasionally top-post, but I would never do it unless it
>made sense.
Fine!
However it is *my experience* (admittedly limited) that in many years
it made sense for me at most once or twice. OTOH I *do* quote properly
even where top-posting is tolerated as a common practice (e.g.
alt.windows*: yes, I happened to need their help! ;-)
>Of course, no one should ever reply to a post point by point by
>top-posting, unless you can summarize it in one thought. And if you are
I agree, but then the point is that even in the case one is addressing
the whole sense of a post or that of a post short enough to be
addressed in one single point, well even in these cases one could
quote properly equally well. So why not just doing it?!?
>redirecting the exchange, then it also makes sense to top-post as an
>introduction.
I doubt that many people will think that adding a small part of
original content at the top of a post as an introduction would qualify
as "top-posting".
By "top-posting" it is generally intended to quote a whole post
(possibly very long) and add one's own cmts at the top of it. It
plainly doesn't make sense.
>> But seriously this (Godwin's law) painting one's rhetorical
>> opponents as Nazis is an odious and verminous ploy normally used,
>> as here, to mask the intellectual bankruptcy of one's arguments.
>> - Robin Chapman in sci.math
>>
>> (couldn't find better words to express about your idiotic cmt)
>
>I liked BULLSHIT better...
>
>Sorry...your quote of a quote on the application of "Godwin's law", is
>in of itself bankrupt because more often than not, people like you
>invoke it as an easy excuse to get out an argument.
BULLSHIT! Sorry: I'm not getting out of this argument! I don't need no
fucked up excuse. Also wtf does it matter what "people like me" do? Do
care what *I* do. Especially since... wtf do you know about how
"people like me" is?
At least I had the good taste not to call you a fascist, especially
since I hardly know anything about you. Sadly enough the little I
know, that is the words I read, makes me think you're behaving in a
fascist way yourself, in particular for how easy it is for you to
categorize people and give them names. ("people like you", etc.)
>> It's just the desire (that can become an actual *need*, taking into
>> account traffic/time considerations) to keep communication
>> *efficient*.
>
>There is "efficiency", and then there is blind adherence to what is
>perceived as "efficiency" by those who are unable to understand the
As most people here has been repeating over and over, top-posting is
tolerated from newbies who hardly know about it (and possible
alternatives).
Of course in certain cases top-posted articles wouldn't hurt much, but
if newbies are not told about it, they won't do it only "occasionally,
when it makes sense", like you do, but they would do it *always*.
>concept and so must utilize a rulebook in order to organize their
>thoughts in an efficient manner ("remember...keep your writing between
>the lines!").
Gawd! You enlighted me!! I had never realized that top-posters are
free thought champions are people charachterized by a higher
intelligence and a strong sense for free thought so that they deserve
not to "keep their writing between the lines"... what an idiot I've
been!! It's so patently evident!
>> Because netiquette requires not to top-post.
>
>Oh...I see..."requires", eh?
Yes, so what? Do you happen to know any dictator who imposed it?!? I
doubt so...
It was made by the community for the community. *out of common sense*!
(as you *seem* to agree)
>> of time it's just saving a tiny percent on the writer's part and
>> making potential readers waste a huge percent of their own
>> time/resources.
>
>You're kidding right? You've got to elaborate on this one.
Not at all! I can easily imagine it to be a real PITA for a
(knowledgeable) poster who's trying to read and answer as many posts
as possible. I can imagine having to go down the post to find what
he's actually referring to, and possibly doing some additional
editing, easily add say a good 10% to the time taken to follow up to
such a post. Now, if *everybody* were doing so this would mean 10%
overall time, and if time constraints are relevant, then this would
mean about 9% less answers. Now if a post of mine falled in this 9%
because someone didn't take care of spending just a bunch of seconds
more to edit his post, then I wouldn't be happy. But that's a matter
of respect, and AFAICT you're not much familiar with it...
>> It's a matter of asking a question and deserving an answer, but
>> avoiding to take care of helping others to help us.
>>
>> PS: don't make yourself a dumbass by abusing a word like "fascist".
>
>"Dumbass"? Pehehehehee~
>
>Well, dear, if you actually know the definition of "fascism" then maybe
>you can tell me how I've "abused" the definition?
Non, mon cher,
I don't know a definition of fascism. And I doubt that a comprehensive
one can be given, except possibly for a hystorical one, which would be
useless in practice for it would fail to deal with the fact that
fascism *does* exist, now.
However fascism is many things: it is contained in nuce in the
bourgeois society and its "ethics". But it is also a matter of
ignorance and arrogance. Well, you seem to me arrogant enough...
Also, one of fascists' mottos used to be "me ne frego!" (that is "I
don't care!", but more vulgarly).
Top-posting and arguing that "I have the right to do it, you must
answer in any case, I don't care if you don't like it" *is* an "I
don't care"!
Well, I may have plainly killfiled you, but as I do not want to behave
like a fascist, I *do* care. And I couldn't help answering. Of course,
unless I realize you're not the "kind of person" I'm beginning to
suspect you are, I'll killfile you first or later, especially since I
doubt that I could get any help out of you.
Michele Dondi
<w...@what.where> wrote:
>> Some countries go so far as to force their hapless citizens by law
>> to drive on one paricular side of the road. Fascists! Bomb them,
>> I say.
>
>Seriously, do you honestly believe that this is proper analogy? Laws
>created to preserve the life and safety of citizens are placed on the
>same scale as the maintenance of "stylistic merit"?
No, it is *not* proper for laws, could they be created to preserve the
life and safety of citizens, are in any case imposed by an authority.
Also, they often have the tendency to become self-referential so that
their original aim, that it to be a tool to aid the life of people is
reverted to the point that the life of people ends being a tool whose
only use is to obey the law.
You'll notice that instead the practice of quoting properly is a
self-established law arisen out of common sense from a base of users
that are on the exact same level except possibly for relative
expertise merits, that do not influence their respective rights and
duties, anyway.
And it is *not* proper for while driving on the left or on the right
are much the same thing, top-posting makes for inefficient and
unpleasant communication whereas quoting properly, as opposed to it,
only takes a bare minimum of additional efforts.
Michele
Henry Law
<bik....@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:08:52 -0400, Shawn Corey
><shawn...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>There are basically two kinds of people in this regard: those who
two and a half ...
>top-post because they are newcomers to USENET in general and hardly
>know that you can organize your article in a better way and when
>advised not to do so *do* follow the advice maybe for convenience (but
>then first or later realize the inherent advantages), and those who,
>whatever the (supposed) reason they may have for top-posting, insist
>that they must be free to do so and give names to those who say the
>contrary, etc.
The half is those like me who know that bottom-posting is the accepted
thing (and that unlike top-posting will never get you flamed) and
therefore do it without fail, but all the while harbouring a secret
liking for top posting! When a thread's going quickly it's so much
easier just to press "N" (in my case) and see the parts of the
conversation going past like lines in a play. But don't worry ... I
keep my secret vice to myself ;-)
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Ala Qumsieh
>
> Scott Bryce wrote:
>
>> And if someone is responding to different parts of your post, as I am
>> doing here, how do you keep it all in context if it is all top posted?
>>
>
> I call it memory.
That's fine if you're following only one or two threads, especially if
you started them. But for the regulars here who answer tens of posts a
day, remembering every single detail is impossible. They are giving up
their time FOR FREE to help you. The only considerate thing for you to
do is to minimize their inconvenience so everyone's happy. It's all
about respect, really.
--Ala
Michele Dondi
<lawshous...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>The half is those like me who know that bottom-posting is the accepted
>thing (and that unlike top-posting will never get you flamed) and
As a minor point, I notice that people keep using "bottom-posting" as
opposed to "top-posting", but I think that it's just to find a quick
term... however "pure bottom-posting" even if slightly more manageable
than top-posting suffers just as much from the severe problem of
quoting unnecessary material, and in some respects can be even worse,
for one *may* have to scroll down a long quoted part before finding
the original content.
So, just to be pedantic, I'd stress that the correct opposite of
"top-posting" we're (almost) all referring to here is "quoting
properly", or "interleaving": well I don't know if there's even a
precise term to identify it...
David H. Adler
> Austin P. So (Hae Jin) <w...@what.where> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>>
>>
>> Anno Siegel wrote:
>> > Austin P. So (Hae Jin) <w...@what.where> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>>
>> >>I really don't understand the fascist notion that things must be done a
>> >>certain way in order to belong to the newsgroup community.
>>
>> > Some countries go so far as to force their hapless citizens by law
>> > to drive on one paricular side of the road. Fascists! Bomb them,
>> > I say.
>>
>> Seriously, do you honestly believe that this is proper analogy? Laws
>> created to preserve the life and safety of citizens are placed on the
>> same scale as the maintenance of "stylistic merit"?
>
> Yes, it's a good analogy.
>
> Foremost, the analogy shows that there can be massive advantages in
> preferring, even enforcing, a rule that may look arbitrary to someone
> not acquainted with the territory. That is independent of the serious-
> ness of consequences if the rule is broken.
The analogy does work quite well. Let's say someone drives on the wrong
(for the local value of "wrong") side of the road, and claims they do so
because they like driving on that side better. Exactly the same
situation. The difference is that here, someone may get verbally flamed
or killfiled while, on the road, some one can get killed.
If one wanted to take the analogy a step further, those telling people
not to top-post are equivalent to people on the road going "Hey, you're
going to cause an accident!"
The fact that the *consequenses* of driving "wrong" are worse than those
of top-posting doesn't make the analogy flawed. Just less important in
the grand scheme of things.
dha
--
David H. Adler - <d...@panix.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
SURF MUSIC makes EVERYTHING better! - Tom Servo
Helgi Briem
wrote:
>> Noone? Who's "noone"?
>
>The transformation of compound nouns from two words to a
>hyphenated compound to a single word as they become more
>naturalised is a perfectly well established trait in English.
>Take 'nobody': it was 'no body' in the 14th century, 'no-body'
> in the 18th, and 'nobody' in the 19th
>[OED].
>
>People who try to restrict the natural evolution of languages
> through ignorance really get on my nerves :).
Far be it from me to restrict the natural evolution of
languages. I was trying to make a (rather feeble) joke
at someone else's expense. So sue me.
--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Jon Ericson
>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard S Beckett <spik...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> Richard> In other newsgroups they much prefer people to top post.
>
> Name one.
rec.crafts.scrapbooks
But I can't think of any technical groups. My guess is that groups
eventually migrate to inline posting as the value of precision becomes
apparent.
Jon
bxb7668
news:rcgvfd7...@Jon-Ericson.sdsio.prv...
Most of the Microsoft newsgroups that I trawl have about a 50-50 split
between top and bottom posters. An example is
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics.
Personally I prefer top posting as long as the answer has enough
context to understand the discussion.
Tad McClellan
> "Jon Ericson" <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:rcgvfd7...@Jon-Ericson.sdsio.prv...
>> mer...@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>
>> >>>>>> "Richard" == Richard S Beckett <spik...@bigfoot.com>
> writes:
>> >
>> > Richard> In other newsgroups they much prefer people to top post.
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>> > Name one.
> Most of the Microsoft newsgroups that I trawl have about a 50-50 split
> between top and bottom posters.
Then it is not the type of example that was requested.
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
ta...@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
Jon Ericson
> Most of the Microsoft newsgroups that I trawl have about a 50-50
> split between top and bottom posters. An example is
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics.
Somehow I don't think the Microsoft groups are the best examples. ;-)
> Personally I prefer top posting as long as the answer has enough
> context to understand the discussion.
Why? As a reader I much prefer inline posting (with irrelevant
material snipped). It's easier to follow a discussion in a logical
order when I land in the middle of a thread. As an author, it's a tad
more time-consuming, but worth the effort. A little discipline
improves the quality of writing in my experience.
Jon
Alan J. Flavell
> "bxb7668" <bxb...@somewhere.nocom> writes:
>
> > Most of the Microsoft newsgroups that I trawl have about a 50-50
> > split between top and bottom posters. An example is
> > microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics.
>
> Somehow I don't think the Microsoft groups are the best examples. ;-)
I find them an excellent practical demonstration of why usenet has a
long-standing convention for how to quote from previous posts, and of
what goes wrong when this convention is flouted.
But not, of course, as an example to be followed!