Top posting
David Jardine
us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Kent West
No, wait . . .
David Jardine wrote:
>be getting out of hand :)
>us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
>Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>
>
I mean, Agreed.
--
Kent
Jan Leewe Behrendt
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:34:53 -0400
>
> Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> > > be getting out of hand :)
> > > us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> > > Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
> >
>
> s/do/due? :-) ^^
>
> > like top posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical groups
> > like this, are dealing more and more with newcomers to the Internet.
> > We can try to educate them, but things are changing. Maybe instead
> > of judging others and expecting everyone to conform, we should *ALL*
> > keep an open mind, otherwise we might find others are being as
> > judgemental of us as we are of others.
>
> I've been on this mailing list for at least 3 years now. In that time
> and on other mailing lists before it, I have seen a lot of people say
> the same thing you said in your last paragraph. Yet I still see a lot of
> people tell newbies what the correct netiquette is for this list and a
> lot of newbies learn how to do it correctly.
>
> So, my point is that I have not seen any evidence to back up your
> claims and say that we need to change our style on this list. Newbies
> seem to be as capable of learning things as any other user. I am not
> saying we should flame anybody that does top post, but I do not think we
> need to stop educating them, either.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Jacob
In order to prove your point: I've been on this list for a couple of days now
plus it's the first list, I've ever been on, so far.
I did not know about this, so I'm rather glad someone mentioned it...
Jan
p.s.: Now this is the right way to answer isn't it? :)
Carl Fink
> I guess I really am a newbie, because I have no idea what this
> top-posting business is supposed to mean ... we're not supposed to
> send new, clean messages to the list ...?
Quotes properly (in the "no top-posting" belief system) go ABOVE new
material, not below it.
People who hate top-posting (including me) find it illogical and broken.
The experience of reading it seems like, "Here's a fragment that makes no
sense, and now that you're puzzled here's a confusing, out-of-sequence list
of the things that fragment is responding to." The system I'm using here,
quoted material followed by response, means that reading it corresponds to
the order in which the material was created and makes more sense.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
If you attempt to fix something that isn't broken, it will be.
-Bruce Tognazzini
Hal Vaughan
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:34:53 -0400
>
> Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> > > us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> > > Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
> >
>
> s/do/due? :-) ^^
>
> > like top posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical groups
> > like this, are dealing more and more with newcomers to the Internet.
> > We can try to educate them, but things are changing. Maybe instead
> > of judging others and expecting everyone to conform, we should *ALL*
> > keep an open mind, otherwise we might find others are being as
> > judgemental of us as we are of others.
>
> I've been on this mailing list for at least 3 years now. In that time
> and on other mailing lists before it, I have seen a lot of people say
> the same thing you said in your last paragraph. Yet I still see a lot of
> people tell newbies what the correct netiquette is for this list and a
> lot of newbies learn how to do it correctly.
>
> So, my point is that I have not seen any evidence to back up your
> claims and say that we need to change our style on this list. Newbies
> seem to be as capable of learning things as any other user. I am not
> saying we should flame anybody that does top post, but I do not think we
> need to stop educating them, either.
I didn't say we have to change our style, but we can be more accepting. I'm
on a good number of mailing lists, some tech oriented, some not. I've also
learned something amazing in life: it is our choice if something bothers us
or not. In other words, we can get over it, or just let it by. If we are
bothered by it, it is because we make a choice, consciously or unconsciously,
to be bothered by something. My point is that as long as we keep judging
others, we should expect to be judged as well. It's not a flame, but it is a
valid point. If top posting is such an issue, we can always send out a
weekly FAQ or ADVICE post, but we also have to remember there will always be
newbies and there will always be people who have free will and don't do
everything the way we want them to.
> Just my $0.02.
Mine, as well.
I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. I was just presenting my point of
view, since this particular Pandora's Box was opened.
Hal
Mike Ward
Thanks for asking that, btw, Jin. I'm only an occasional user of the
mailing list (I pop in every week or so to check up on it, that's
about it, at most), and I was wondering as well. Actually, I even made
the same incorrect assumption.
>From the perspective of someone that doesn't follow the list
religiously, just pops around a bit and quite honestly probably only
reads one message out of a thousand, I kind of think the weekly FAQ or
posting guidelines is a good idea. To put it bluntly, I'm sure that a
lot of people just aren't concerned enough to study a FAQ page
somewhere, but if every week or two (even monthly) a message pops up
that reminds them, they'd probably take note.
Afterall, I honestly never had heard of 'top-posting' before until
now, but just this gentle reminder means that at least one occasional
user is now posting more 'correctly'.
Jin Juku
top-posting business is supposed to mean ... we're not supposed to
send new, clean messages to the list ...?
-jin-
Lech Karol Pawłaszek
[...]
> Afterall, I honestly never had heard of 'top-posting' before until
> now, but just this gentle reminder means that at least one occasional
> user is now posting more 'correctly'.
Hooray! :-)
If you would like to post even more 'correctly' - please read Netiquette RFC
(also known as "How to behave on the internet") which is right here:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
or at least "3.0 One-to-Many Communication (Mailing Lists, NetNews)" section.
TIA. Regards,
--
Lech Karol Pawłaszek <ike>
"You will never see me fall from grace..." [KoRn]
Jacob S
Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> > be getting out of hand :)
> > us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> > Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
> >
> My point (with all do respect and no insult intended): You may not
s/do/due? :-) ^^
> like top posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical groups
> like this, are dealing more and more with newcomers to the Internet.
> We can try to educate them, but things are changing. Maybe instead
> of judging others and expecting everyone to conform, we should *ALL*
> keep an open mind, otherwise we might find others are being as
> judgemental of us as we are of others.
I've been on this mailing list for at least 3 years now. In that time
and on other mailing lists before it, I have seen a lot of people say
the same thing you said in your last paragraph. Yet I still see a lot of
people tell newbies what the correct netiquette is for this list and a
lot of newbies learn how to do it correctly.
So, my point is that I have not seen any evidence to back up your
claims and say that we need to change our style on this list. Newbies
seem to be as capable of learning things as any other user. I am not
saying we should flame anybody that does top post, but I do not think we
need to stop educating them, either.
Just my $0.02.
Jacob
Graham Smith
> On Thursday 09 of June 2005 22:13, Mike Ward wrote:
> [...]
>
>>Afterall, I honestly never had heard of 'top-posting' before until
>>now, but just this gentle reminder means that at least one occasional
>>user is now posting more 'correctly'.
>
>
> Hooray! :-)
>
> If you would like to post even more 'correctly' - please read Netiquette RFC
> (also known as "How to behave on the internet") which is right here:
>
> http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
>
> or at least "3.0 One-to-Many Communication (Mailing Lists, NetNews)" section.
>
> TIA. Regards,
>
I know that this will put the cat amongst the pigeons but I actually
prefer top posting. I've been reading newsgroups and mailing lists for
years and I have always thought that bottom posting was the wrong way to
do it.
I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but
if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually
reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each
post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already
read. There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
from one post to the next. If the author wants to quote a section of the
previous post they can in the extreme they end up inlining their post.
I'm not saying I'm right and I often bottom post to not annoy people but
I have to try and convince you to switch.
Graham
PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting
zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and
chilled out people. :o)
Hal Vaughan
> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>
I can understand this bothers you, since many people consider it a point of
courtesy. After all, the whole purpose of responding in-line or after
another post is to make it easier to understand each other and to communicate
within an accepted set of rules that makes it easier for ALL of us to
understand each post.
With that being said, and realizing that with a .de domain, you are probably
using English as a second language, one could ask that you make an effort to
use proper style, such as writing in complete sentences, capitalizing the
beginning of your sentences, and completing your sentences. After all, such
practices are standard in German as well as English, so it would be
appropriate to follow such rules in order to make it easier for all of us to
understand what you are saying.
My point (with all do respect and no insult intended): You may not like top
posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical groups like this, are
dealing more and more with newcomers to the Internet. We can try to educate
them, but things are changing. Maybe instead of judging others and expecting
everyone to conform, we should *ALL* keep an open mind, otherwise we might
find others are being as judgemental of us as we are of others.
Hal
Lech Karol Pawłaszek
[...]
> I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but
> if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually
> reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each
> post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already
> read. There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
That's why people also should cut unnecessary pieces. And not everybody have
to remember what the thread was about. Or reads every mail in thread. It's
easier to "catch-up" the subject when you have all needed information in
order.
I saw few situations where topposting wasn't so bad (like when boss mails to
you 'one-way message' such as "FIX THIS! NOW!!!"), but it was never better
solution than bottom posting. It was only more simple (to click reply in
Outlook is more simple than to click reply in Outlook and go to the bottom of
the mail).
[...]
> PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting
> zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and
> chilled out people. :o)
Dunno. ;-) maybe they don't see any difference.
And remember:
A: Like that.
Q: How?
A: Because it reverses the usual way we read information.
Q: Why topposting is bad?
Alex Malinovich
--snip--
> PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting
> zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and
> chilled out people. :o)
I would argue that top-posters fall into the same category as most users
of proprietary software. They are too lazy expend a bit of effort to
benefit their fellow man. Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
who haven't followed an entire thread. Much in the same way that users
of proprietary software are too lazy to find, support, or write a free
alternative that would benefit all of mankind.
As a side note, since I got on the subject of users of proprietary
software, I've noticed that there's an interesting distinction between
people who use free (As in speech) software and people who use
proprietary software. People who use proprietary software have a view of
the world which stresses "Me! Me! Me!". People who use free software
generally view the world in terms of "We!".
So a top-poster is concerned about him or herself not doing extra work.
A bottom-poster is concerned with improving the quality of reading for
others.
--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
Joe Potter
> Lech Karol Pawłaszek wrote:
<snip>
>
> PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting
> zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and
> chilled out people. :o)
>
>
No, I would guess they are Winders folks mainly and just have no good
reason to offer for top posting. I further think they just don't give a
darn about helping others out.
Regards, Joe
Andrew Schulman
>> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
>> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>
> posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical groups like this, are
> dealing more and more with newcomers to the Internet. We can try to educate
> them, but things are changing. Maybe instead of judging others and expecting
> everyone to conform, we should *ALL* keep an open mind, otherwise we might
> find others are being as judgemental of us as we are of others.
I don't see that this should require judging others, or even being
impolite. It's just a matter of informing newbies what the standard
practices are, and that there are good, time-tested reasons for those
practices. No hassle or judgment, just education.
Ugo Bellavance
> I guess I really am a newbie, because I have no idea what this
> top-posting business is supposed to mean ... we're not supposed to
> send new, clean messages to the list ...?
He just meant you're supposed to post at the bottom of the original text
when you are replying.
>
> -jin-
>
> On 6/9/05, Jan Leewe Behrendt <leewe.b...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2005 21:18 schrieb Jacob S:
>>
>>>On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:34:53 -0400
>>>
>>>Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>be getting out of hand :)
>>>>>us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
>>>>>Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>>>>
>
>
John Kelly
<gra...@crazysquirrel.com> wrote:
>I actually prefer top posting ... I find it quicker to read just
>the top section of each post rather than having to scroll down past
>everything I've already read.
Perhaps, when people are too lazy to trim. But notice how I trimmed
everything except the minimum necessary to understand the reason for
reply.
A whole post, unless it's very short, should never be quoted in its
entirety. But the ignorant and lazy, often do.
Untrimmed quotes make me FEEL LIKE SHOUTING!
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Robert Wolfe
> No, I would guess they are Winders folks mainly and just have no good
> reason to offer for top posting. I further think they just don't give a
> darn about helping others out.
Heh thing is is I am a Windoze as well as a Debian user (I run the x86
version of Debian under Virtual PC 2004 under WinXP and the Sparc version
of Debian on a Sun Microsystems Ultra 5). I enjoy trying my best to help
others out no matter what the situation or OS they use :)
`$' $'
$ $ _
,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $
`Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
Robert Wolfe -- rob...@bufonline.dyndns.org
Running Debian 3.1 (sarge) on a Sun Ultra 5
Hubert Chan
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
>> be getting out of hand :)
>> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
>> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
[...]
> With that being said, and realizing that with a .de domain, you are
> probably using English as a second language, one could ask that you
> make an effort to use proper style, such as writing in complete
> sentences, capitalizing the beginning of your sentences, and
> completing your sentences.
OK, for the sake of those who missed the point of David Jardine's
message, you read line 3 first, then line 2, then line 1. It's supposed
to emulate the nonsense of top-posting. It isn't broken English.
Here it is in proper order:
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
>> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
>> be getting out of hand :)
(David, I think you're to subtle for the majority of the people on this
list. ;-) )
--
Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Wim De Smet
> I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but
> if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually
> reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each
> post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already
> read. There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
> from one post to the next. If the author wants to quote a section of the
> previous post they can in the extreme they end up inlining their post.
I think it's not necessarily wrong to use top posting. I just feel
like both manners of posting have their place. When you are just
including a mail for reference to something, and then make a reply
that is partly unrelated, I don't mind top posting. When it's a
discussion like this one, I'd say bottom posting is the way to go.
For example, you sent your boss a mail 2 weeks ago about feature x you
want to implement and he sends you a reply now saying 'go ahead'. That
might as well be top posted since that's the end of the conversation.
The mail's only there for reference if you can't make out what it's
about from the subject.On the other hand, in public discussion where
you are replying to mails which elaborate on several points with long
lists of arguments, I think you should bottom post.
Those really are two different use cases, but on a mailinglist it is
handy if everybody has the same style of posting (top or bottom).
Also, many newbies on a mailinglist are not very good with email. It's
one of my pet peeves: when people write a mail in real life, they do
all they can they follow a set standard of writing mail. But when they
go online, they seem to go crazy. Perhaps less so on this list (where
some people seem to forget the role of punctuation), but in places
where HTML mails are allowed, it's really bad. I hope this is one of
the things modern education puts an end to. Instead of teaching 12
year olds how they 'use' MS Word, they could teach em something
usefull for a change.
greets,
Wim
Colin Ingram
>>I think it's not necessarily wrong to use top posting. I just feel
>>like both manners of posting have their place. When you are just
>>including a mail for reference to something, and then make a reply
>>that is partly unrelated, I don't mind top posting. When it's a
>>discussion like this one, I'd say bottom posting is the way to go.
>>
>>
>>
I agree with this statement. In a conversation between two people,
where the previous messages are only included for reference, top posting
makes more sense. I often top post in communications between my
friends, family, and colleague at work. However, in a conversation
between lots of people, like this list, or in a situation where you are
answering lots of questions, like this list, bottom or inline posting
makes more sense. Each has its on place. It's up to each of our own
judgments, and prerogatives, to figure out when to use them.
Most people using email are not aware of the benefits of bottom posting.
(I wasn't until I starting using this list) This makes it important to
educate new users and to have patients with people who are just learning.
Paul E Condon
> >> be getting out of hand :)
> >> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> >> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
> >
> > My point (with all do respect and no insult intended): You may not like top
> > posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical groups like this, are
> > dealing more and more with newcomers to the Internet. We can try to educate
> > them, but things are changing. Maybe instead of judging others and expecting
> > everyone to conform, we should *ALL* keep an open mind, otherwise we might
> > find others are being as judgemental of us as we are of others.
>
> I don't see that this should require judging others, or even being
> impolite. It's just a matter of informing newbies what the standard
> practices are, and that there are good, time-tested reasons for those
> practices. No hassle or judgment, just education.
>
When I first started with Debian (from RH), I was drawn to it by the
useful answers that I saw being offered on this list. I top-posted
once, and was gently corrected by one of the people who was a quite
prolific provider of good answers at that time. Since then I have come
to prefer bottom posting, and I think people who are on this list in
order to get answers should realize that the people who give answers
really, mostly, prefer bottom posting. These people are the resource
that makes this list worthwhile. I think we should all try to give
these people some consideration _before_ one of them becomes cranky
and triggers a thread like this. This thread is such a waste of time.
Be nice to the answer givers and you will be rewarded. Dis them and
they will go away and all of us are then losers.
A second line of thought about top posting: I can imagine that top
posting might be appropriate on some types of email lists. I have
never found a topic in which I was interested for which I felt top
posting was appropriate. But that is more an indication of my
restricting my interest to rational discourse, rather than a rejection
of top posting in general. I'm just bored by discussions of topics for
which it might be appropriate.
JM2\cent
--
Paul E Condon
peco...@mesanetworks.net
David Jardine
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:34:53 -0400, Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com> said:
>
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> >> be getting out of hand :)
> >> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> >> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>
> [...]
>
> > With that being said, and realizing that with a .de domain, you are
> > probably using English as a second language, one could ask that you
> > make an effort to use proper style, such as writing in complete
> > sentences, capitalizing the beginning of your sentences, and
> > completing your sentences.
>
> OK, for the sake of those who missed the point of David Jardine's
> message, you read line 3 first, then line 2, then line 1. It's supposed
> to emulate the nonsense of top-posting. It isn't broken English.
>
> Here it is in proper order:
>
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> >> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
> >> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> >> be getting out of hand :)
>
> (David, I think you're to subtle for the majority of the people on this
> list. ;-) )
Thanks for straightening things out, Hubert. And to think that
it's the Germans that are reputed to have no sense of humour...
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
Joe Potter
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Joe Potter wrote:
>
>> No, I would guess they are Winders folks mainly and just have no good
>> reason to offer for top posting. I further think they just don't give a
>> darn about helping others out.
>
>
> Heh thing is is I am a Windoze as well as a Debian user (I run the x86
> version of Debian under Virtual PC 2004 under WinXP and the Sparc
> version of Debian on a Sun Microsystems Ultra 5). I enjoy trying my
> best to help others out no matter what the situation or OS they use :)
>
>
Double posting is another topic, but just as bad as the topic at hand.
Thanks for the demonstration.
I thought about explaining the word "mainly" in my post since so many
can not fathom words like "majority", "most", "mainly" or any other
reference to over half a given population. I suppose they are to
interested in telling their little story to actually read the post.
But then I thought, "why try?" since most today think anecdotal evidence
is real data. But then, most never took statistics.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/ for "most."
--- Joe
John Carline
snobbish
adj : befitting or characteristic of those who inclined to social
exclusiveness and who rebuff the advances of people
considered inferior [syn: {clannish}, {cliquish},
{clubby}, {snobby}]
Personally, I don't care where an individual posts. But, it would make
my reading/following of threads much easier if I didn't have to scroll
down to the bottom of post after post in a long string just to read the
one line added to the 200 I've already read.
It would be much better added at the top, where it pops onto the screen
immediately and I can go on to the next post.
John
Alex Malinovich wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:06 +0100, Graham Smith wrote:
>--snip--
>
>
>>PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting
>>zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and
>>chilled out people. :o)
>>
>>
>
>I would argue that top-posters fall into the same category as most users
>of proprietary software. They are too lazy expend a bit of effort to
>benefit their fellow man. Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
>who haven't followed an entire thread. Much in the same way that users
>of proprietary software are too lazy to find, support, or write a free
>alternative that would benefit all of mankind.
>
>As a side note, since I got on the subject of users of proprietary
>software, I've noticed that there's an interesting distinction between
>people who use free (As in speech) software and people who use
>proprietary software. People who use proprietary software have a view of
>the world which stresses "Me! Me! Me!". People who use free software
>generally view the world in terms of "We!".
>
>So a top-poster is concerned about him or herself not doing extra work.
>A bottom-poster is concerned with improving the quality of reading for
>others.
>
>
>
--
Powered by the Penguin
Roel Schroeven
> Am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2005 21:18 schrieb Jacob S:
>>So, my point is that I have not seen any evidence to back up your
>>claims and say that we need to change our style on this list. Newbies
>>seem to be as capable of learning things as any other user.
>
> In order to prove your point: I've been on this list for a couple of days now
> plus it's the first list, I've ever been on, so far.
> I did not know about this, so I'm rather glad someone mentioned it...
> Jan
>
> p.s.: Now this is the right way to answer isn't it? :)
Actually, even better is to quote only the parts of the previous
message(s) that you're replying to, or commenting on, and delete all the
rest. Some care should be taken that you don't take things out of
context of course.
http://pub.tsn.dk/how-to-quote.php is a nice explanation of how to quote.
--
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton
Roel Schroeven
Hal Vaughan
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:34:53 -0400, Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com>
said:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> >> be getting out of hand :)
> >> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> >> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
>
> [...]
>
> > With that being said, and realizing that with a .de domain, you are
> > probably using English as a second language, one could ask that you
> > make an effort to use proper style, such as writing in complete
> > sentences, capitalizing the beginning of your sentences, and
> > completing your sentences.
>
> OK, for the sake of those who missed the point of David Jardine's
> message, you read line 3 first, then line 2, then line 1. It's supposed
> to emulate the nonsense of top-posting. It isn't broken English.
>
> Here it is in proper order:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
> >> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
> >> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> >> be getting out of hand :)
>
> (David, I think you're to subtle for the majority of the people on this
> list. ;-) )
No.
I saw that, figured it was an attempt to be clever in making one's point and
decided it was stupid. Why? There's a big difference between inverting a
few lines and having a different order for paragraphs. As a writer, to me,
it's comparing apples and oranges and, well, just a bad attempt at clever, or
a reminder of a MOTD I used to get on my Amiga shell: "Too clever is dumb."
Hal
Patrick Wiseman
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
efficient. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't process
information that way.
I know bottom-posting is the preferred protocol here, and so I usually
respect it (this exception is just to make a point). But just try the
other way (in a forum where it's accepted), and I think you might find
you like it. I have my email ordered most-recent-first, and it saves
me a _lot_ of time, whether the individual emails are top- or
bottom-posted! I'm actually a bit surprised that tech people
generally prefer bottom posting; on all the academic lists I'm on, top
posting is the norm, and it's _not_ because those people are stupid or
lazy or self-absorbed.
Patrick
Hal Vaughan
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:06 +0100, Graham Smith wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting
> > zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and
> > chilled out people. :o)
>
> I would argue that top-posters fall into the same category as most users
> of proprietary software. They are too lazy expend a bit of effort to
> benefit their fellow man. Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
> who haven't followed an entire thread. Much in the same way that users
> of proprietary software are too lazy to find, support, or write a free
> alternative that would benefit all of mankind.
>
> As a side note, since I got on the subject of users of proprietary
> software, I've noticed that there's an interesting distinction between
> people who use free (As in speech) software and people who use
> proprietary software. People who use proprietary software have a view of
> the world which stresses "Me! Me! Me!". People who use free software
> generally view the world in terms of "We!".
>
> So a top-poster is concerned about him or herself not doing extra work.
> A bottom-poster is concerned with improving the quality of reading for
> others.
That's the most self-serving, self-centered, one-sided point of view I've read
on any tech list in years. In 3 paragraphs, you manage to insult users of
proprietary software a number of ways, calling them self centered over and
over, and say how FOSS people are more world oriented and less self-centered.
Yet, while you are going on and on calling others self-centered, you are
totally incapable of seeing how "Me! Me! Me!" your point of view is. As long
as people follow your rules, they are open minded. People who don't are
closed minded. So does it not occur to you that many people think
differently than you, so top posting may work better for you?
I don't know you, but your post is as self-centered, as "Me! Me! Me!" and as
representative of someone concerned with not caring about whether or not
their view is focused on himself instead of on others as is possible. I hope
this bias and bigotry is not representive of the real you.
Hal
Carl Fink
> I know bottom-posting is the preferred protocol here, and so I usually
> respect it (this exception is just to make a point). But just try the
> other way (in a forum where it's accepted), and I think you might find
> you like it ...
How to put this, how to put this ....
No. No indeed.
In fact there are times when top-posting is appropriate, but mailing lists
and Usenet are NOT on that list. In either case, you can't assume that
everyone reading the message (including people reading an archived copy on
the Web two years later) has read the whole thread and doesn't need context.
Note that bottom-posting most definitely requires quote-trimming, as others
have said and demonstrated.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
Kent West
> Personally, I don't care where an individual posts. But, it would make
> my reading/following of threads much easier if I didn't have to
> scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a long string just to
> read the one line added to the 200 I've already read.
And that's why "trimming" is also a recommended practice.
No need to quote 200 lines of irrelevant material; trim out the
unnecessary stuff. This is also a consideration towards those who have
to pay for their internet access per byte. Why are you forcing them to
spend their money on six copies of the same 7-line signature and 17-line
"disclaimer" (and don't even get me started on disclaimers) just to read
a one-line reply to a one-line question?
Regarding top-posting, that's fine in some situations, but in a
situation like an email list, it's not just you and one or two others
reading the material, and making sense of it because all of you can
remember the context. It may be that in six months someone is trying to
find an answer in the archives, and top-posted messages turn into
spaghetti code. Remember how all your programming classes and peers
reiterated over and over that spaghetti code is a bad thing? Same thing
in email threads, particularly in archives. Top-posting, and lack of
trimming, often results in an ugly mess.
--
Kent
Kent West
>(David, I think you're to subtle . . . .
>
>
"too".
D'oh!
As long as we're drifting way off-topic (which is a fun thing to do
sometimes, for a short while):
"you're" means "you are", as in "You're driving too fast".
"your" means "being possessed by you", as in "Your car is going off a
cliff, with us in it. Aeieieie!"
"it's" means "it is", as in "It's time to be anal, like Kent is being now."
"its" means "being possessed by it", as in "Its odor was somewhat
'anal', if you know what I mean."
"two" means the number just prior to five ("three, Sire!"); oh, yes,
prior to three.
"too" means "also" or "overly much", as in "Kent's being too picky. He's
ugly, too."
"to" is used in just about all other cases, as in "Are you going to the
movie? Or are you going to be a stay-at-home stick-in-the-mud?"
I think that about covers my off-topic holier-than-thou rant. (But
remember, I can't code my way out of a BASIC goto loop.)
No offense intended to anyone. This email is the property of the owner
and all unauthorized uses are strictly forbidden without express written
permission, a $25 cashier's check, a promissory note for your firstborn
child, three tickets to any show in Branson, Missouri, and a Hostess
Cup-Cake, no, I mean Mrs. Baird's Cup-Cake (aeeieh! (as he flies off the
Bridge of Death)).
--
Kent
Tony Godshall
> reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each
> post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already
I think you are reacting to cases where the responder is too
lazy to trim.
> There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
> from one post to the next. ...
Which is fine if you are reading a thread fresh, but if you
are reading a number of lists, and leave and come back, you
need a bit of context.
> If the author wants to quote a section of the
> previous post they can in the extreme they end up inlining their post.
Which is right, the context and the response.
> I'm not saying I'm right and I often bottom post to not annoy people but
> I have to try and convince you to switch.
You are a very kind person. :-)
Paul Johnson
> I know that this will put the cat amongst the pigeons but I
> actually prefer top posting. I've been reading newsgroups and
> mailing lists for years and I have always thought that bottom
> posting was the wrong way to do it.
You've been around too many Outlook Express and Outlook users, then.
Those are the only two clients that encourage top posting by default
and make you strain to post properly, instead of the other way
around.
> I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be
> better but if I am following the thread, which is normally the case
> if I'm actually reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the
> top section of each post rather than having to scroll down past
> everything I've already read.
Part of proper quoting is proper snipping of irrelevant material. If
you have to scroll down to get to new material, too much quoted text
is being included. Use this message as an example. It's a
conversation, you receive one half and interject the other half.
> There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that from
> one post to the next.
Sure you can, uh huh, yeah. Do you remember the post caught by your
filters? How about that one that never got delivered to your site?
> I'm not saying I'm right and I often bottom post to not annoy
> people but I have to try and convince you to switch.
Who died and left you to rewrite the English language?
> PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top
> posting zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more
> relaxed and chilled out people. :o)
Because most people realize that they're wrong and start posting in a
comprehensible manner.
--
Paul Johnson
Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): ba...@ursine.ca
http://ursine.ca/~baloo/
Paul Johnson
> be getting out of hand :)
> us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
> Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
Sure. And I invite folks to add their own two cents.
Paul Johnson
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
On Thursday June 9 2005 4:22 pm, John Carline wrote:
> But, it would make my reading/following of threads much easier if I
> didn't have to scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a
> long string just to read the one line added to the 200 I've already
> read.
Part of proper quoting is removing the parts that you're *not*
responding to. Failing to remove irrelevant text is a function of
poor netiquette encouraged by top posting. Search Google Groups and
observe how people very rarely included the entire prior post or top
posted before Microsoft's top-post-by-default clients hit the net.
Paul Johnson
> My point (with all do respect and no insult intended): You may not
> like top posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical
> groups like this, are dealing more and more with newcomers to the
> Internet.
No! Not acceptable!
You make it sound like we should just give up and accept the fact
most newbies apparently forgot that at least European languages are
read from top down in conversational order, not abritrary point
down, back to the top and down to arbitrary point, etc. Anybody
high school or older should be able to properly articulate why top
posting isn't clear, as well as the sharper kids in school that have
made it past first grade English.
> We can try to educate them, but things are changing.
That's what they said about northern Europe in the 1930s, too.
Granted, top posting isn't genocide, but "things changing" is never a
valid excuse for gratuitous stupidity.
Carl Fink
> You've been around too many Outlook Express and Outlook users, then.
> Those are the only two clients that encourage top posting by default
> and make you strain to post properly, instead of the other way
> around.
Lotus Notes. (I was a Notes admin and developer once upon a time.)
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
If you attempt to fix something that isn't broken, it will be.
-Bruce Tognazzini
Chris F.A. Johnson
> Hubert Chan wrote:
>
>>(David, I think you're to subtle . . . .
>>
>>
> "too".
>
> D'oh!
>
> As long as we're drifting way off-topic (which is a fun thing to do
> sometimes, for a short while):
>
> "you're" means "you are", as in "You're driving too fast".
> "your" means "being possessed by you", as in "Your car is going off a
> cliff, with us in it. Aeieieie!"
Not to mention:
loose (rhymes with juice) means the opposite of tight
lose (rhymes with booze) means to misplace
If virus took a latin plural, it could be viri, but never virii.
The accepted plural is viruses.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>
Paul Johnson
> Thanks for asking that, btw, Jin. I'm only an occasional user of
> the mailing list (I pop in every week or so to check up on it,
> that's about it, at most), and I was wondering as well. Actually, I
> even made the same incorrect assumption.
Note that top posting is considered harmful pretty much universally
outside the newbie community, not something unique to us. The
>From the perspective of someone that doesn't follow the list
>
> religiously, just pops around a bit and quite honestly probably
> only reads one message out of a thousand, I kind of think the
> weekly FAQ or posting guidelines is a good idea.
How about an RFC? That trumps all but RFCs that make it to being
STDs.
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting#RFC_1855.C2.A0.28http%3A.2F.2Fwww.faqs.o
rg.2Frfcs.2Frfc1855.html.29
> To put it bluntly,
> I'm sure that a lot of people just aren't concerned enough to study
> a FAQ page somewhere, but if every week or two (even monthly) a
> message pops up that reminds them, they'd probably take note.
It's their obligation as an internet user to know and operate within
the realm of acceptable practices. If they can't do that, they
shouldn't be connected to the internet.
Paul Johnson
> I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
> wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
> idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
> efficient
Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it
backwards is more efficient.
Paul Johnson
> I guess I really am a newbie, because I have no idea what this
> top-posting business is supposed to mean ... we're not supposed to
> send new, clean messages to the list ...?
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
The more you know...
Paul Johnson
> Jin Juku wrote:
> > I guess I really am a newbie, because I have no idea what this
> > top-posting business is supposed to mean ... we're not supposed
> > to send new, clean messages to the list ...?
>
> text when you are replying.
That's also not the answer, it only creates the opposite of the
problem. It's best to reply conversationally, you received all
relevant portions of the conversation, it's your turn to interject
what you have the knowledge to add.
Paul Johnson
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:12:37PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > You've been around too many Outlook Express and Outlook users,
> > then. Those are the only two clients that encourage top posting
> > by default and make you strain to post properly, instead of the
> > other way around.
>
> Lotus Notes. (I was a Notes admin and developer once upon a time.)
Oh, yes. Notus Jokes is a memory I'm trying to repress from when I
worked at Stream. This has been easy since about the only place that
seems to use that POS is Stream...
(I'm not sure I would have done that if I knew Stream was a packaging
manufacturer (they made the packaging for Windows 95 and 98) that
Microsoft liked so much they hired them to handle their outsourced
tech support calls. I have a hard time believing that Scott Adams
wasn't hidden away in some back cubicle, stalking me for inspiration
there; it was strange how often something would happen at work and
then happen in the Dilbert strip almost word for word a few days
later when I worked there...)
Paul Johnson
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 05:26 pm, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > So a top-poster is concerned about him or herself not doing extra
> > work. A bottom-poster is concerned with improving the quality of
> > reading for others.
>
> That's the most self-serving, self-centered, one-sided point of
> view I've read on any tech list in years. In 3 paragraphs, you
> manage to insult users of proprietary software a number of ways,
> calling them self centered over and over,
That doesn't make him self-serving or self-centered. Of course it's
one sided: There's only one side to it (and every other standard
that Microsoft decided to add their own "side" to). As for
proprietary software users, they do the world a great injustice by
holding back software with economic force. They do the online
community and business great injustice and are a major source of lost
productivity, lost revenue, and completely superfluous overhead that
raises everybody's prices at the checkstand. Get your facts
straight.
> Yet, while you are going on and on calling others self-centered,
> you are totally incapable of seeing how "Me! Me! Me!" your point of
> view is.
So far, we've seen plenty of valid arguments in favor of proper
quoting and lots of "but what about my FEEEELINGS?" arguments from
top-posters. If you want to make a valid argument, please address
these points which top-posters have yet to post any intelligent
rebuttal to:
* Why is top posting not found before Microsoft made it popular?
* How does top posting address filtered or lost messages in a
straightforward manner? Picking through 200 lines of top-posted crap
to find the one or two lines that gives the new material context does
not address this issue.
* RFC 1855. What makes your way so much better that it's worth
breaking a 35 year stretch of doing it the right way?
> As long as people follow your rules, they are open
> minded. People who don't are closed minded. So does it not occur
> to you that many people think differently than you, so top posting
> may work better for you?
No, people who follow open standards are open minded. People who
rally against the Right Thing are closed minded. People who think
Microsoft's way is the only way are closed minded. Which group are
you in?
Hal Vaughan
> On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> > I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
> > wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
> > idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
> > efficient
>
> Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it
> backwards is more efficient.
>
Boy, someone's got his dander up!
There is no comparison to these two. They are two completely different topics
and situations.
Hal
Hal Vaughan
> On Thursday June 9 2005 11:34 am, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > My point (with all do respect and no insult intended): You may not
> > like top posting, but all of us on the 'net, even in technical
> > groups like this, are dealing more and more with newcomers to the
> > Internet.
>
> No! Not acceptable!
>
> You make it sound like we should just give up and accept the fact
> most newbies apparently forgot that at least European languages are
> read from top down in conversational order, not abritrary point
> down, back to the top and down to arbitrary point, etc. Anybody
> high school or older should be able to properly articulate why top
> posting isn't clear, as well as the sharper kids in school that have
> made it past first grade English.
No, but from the number of replies you've made, and the vehemence of your
language, I can see that, for some reason, this topic is extremely important
to you. (Now why someone can get so fired up over something like this, when
there's so much else to deal with in life is beyond me.) So, if there is a
strong emotional reaction to this topic, I can see how it would be easy for
someone to infer what I did not imply.
I guess there's a difference between us: You want everything to be one way,
and I have no problem with people doing things differently.
> > We can try to educate them, but things are changing.
>
> That's what they said about northern Europe in the 1930s, too.
> Granted, top posting isn't genocide, but "things changing" is never a
> valid excuse for gratuitous stupidity.
Cool! A Hitler reference so early in the thread.
Guess there's no need for me to continue this discussion. I'll just pay my
regards to Godwin and leave it at that, instead of pointing out what a weak
strawman argument that is.
Hubert Chan
> I saw that, figured it was an attempt to be clever in making one's
> point and decided it was stupid. ...
Then why did you decide to insult David's writing grammar when there was
nothing wrong with his grammar if you read his message properly? (Other
than the missing period after the last sentence.) As a writer, you were
definitely not making your point clear.
--
Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Hubert Chan
> Hubert Chan wrote:
>> (David, I think you're to subtle . . . .
>>
>>
> "too".
> D'oh!
Yeah, I saw that after I sent the message. I'll blame it on my keyboard
not noticing the second `o'. Or on the Debian list server for
attempting to save bandwidth by cuting out rndom ltrs.
[...]
> No offense intended to anyone. This email is the property of the owner
> and all unauthorized uses are strictly forbidden without express
> written permission, a $25 cashier's check, a promissory note for your
> firstborn child, three tickets to any show in Branson, Missouri, and a
> Hostess Cup-Cake, no, I mean Mrs. Baird's Cup-Cake (aeeieh! (as he
> flies off the Bridge of Death)).
Warning: this message has sharp corners. Keep away from small children.
If ingested, consult a doctor immediately. Not to be used as a
flotation device.
--
Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Hal Vaughan
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:16:46 -0400, Hal Vaughan <h...@thresholddigital.com>
said:
> > I saw that, figured it was an attempt to be clever in making one's
> > point and decided it was stupid. ...
>
> Then why did you decide to insult David's writing grammar when there was
> nothing wrong with his grammar if you read his message properly? (Other
> than the missing period after the last sentence.)
I was making a point -- taking his letter as read, and pointing out that none
of us are perfect. If you read all my comments, and did so dispassionately,
without wanting to find offense, you'd see I made it clear there was no
intent to slam him, merely to point out that we are all open to criticism.
If that were not true, you would not be criticizing me, or others. While
there was no actual insult intended, I accept that you clearly feel that the
way I made my point was less than perfect, just as the e-mail I was
responding to was, and just as those who top-post are -- at least according
to the absolutist standards some insist on implying.
> As a writer, you were definitely not making your point clear.
Guess you aren't familiar with the life of a writer. While some claim to have
never had a work rejected ever (I think Ray Bradbury is in that group, but I
don't remember for sure), for most writers, for every piece that does well,
they have many that they tried and aborted or others that just fell flat.
For Star Wars Episodes IV & V we had to put up with I, II, II, & VI. For The
Tempest and Midsummer Night's Dream, we had Coriolanus. Not every thing
every writer writes turns out perfectly.
You don't like it? Fine. There were probably better ways I could make my
point.
Hal
Rogério Brito
> But, it would make my reading/following of threads much easier if I
> didn't have to scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a long
> string just to read the one line added to the 200 I've already read.
The point is: if somebody makes you scroll down many pages so that you can
see his/her answer, then the problem is that that person is not using the
right way of posting messages.
Quoting messages should be to the point and only leave relevant pieces of
older messages. And, of course, the attribution of each quote to the person
that generated it.
> It would be much better added at the top, where it pops onto the screen
> immediately and I can go on to the next post.
This isn't the case if what you are replying to needs a detailed answer.
And this is usually the case of a technical mailing list, like this one.
OTOH, if the person is only replying to a message in general, I see little
motivation to the practice of top-posting.
In fact, if the person doesn't really care about preserving the context to
where he/she is replying, then why quote the message at all? Just start a
reply to the thread from scratch.
Since that person is already assuming that the others are following the
thread to where the message is being sent, why preserve the older messages'
contents?
Just another view on this polemical issue, Rogério Brito.
--
Learn to quote e-mails decently at:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
http://pub.tsn.dk/how-to-quote.php
http://learn.to/quote
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm
Hubert Chan
> ...
>> There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that from
>> one post to the next. ...
> Which is fine if you are reading a thread fresh, but if you are
> reading a number of lists, and leave and come back, you need a bit of
> context.
Even if you are reading a thread fresh, trying to remember what a post
said doesn't work too well for people without threaded mail readers,
since a reply may be separated from the original message. And even for
people with threaded mail readers, it doesn't work too well with long
threads with many replies -- if you finish reading this message, and
then read my reply to Hal's reply to the original message, you would
have a hard time remembering Hal's message that I was replying to, since
you would have read that message 10 messages ago.
--
Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Hubert Chan
> I completely agree. ...
Hmm. What do you agree with? Are you agreeing that top posting sucks,
or that top posting is good? Well to figure that out, I would need to
either scroll down to look at the post that you're replying to
(fortunately, my mail reader shows be about 50 lines of the message, so
I actually didn't have to scroll) or try to figure it out from the rest
of what you write (fortunately, your next sentence makes it clear, but
that doesn't happen all the time for everyone, and besides, I don't like
being confused after reading the first sentence of a message and having
to wait until the second sentence to figure out what's going on).
Do you see why it's nice to have the context provided immediately? With
a bottom-posted message, I can quickly scan the original message and
recall the context that I had read before. If I have to scroll to see
the reply (which should be very rare, if quoted text is trimmed
properly), I just have to hit [space] once or twice, and I can easily
tell when I've reached the reply because my mail reader colours quoted
text.
With a top-posted message, I read the first sentence, get confused,
scroll down to read the context, then scroll back up to read the rest of
the reply.
Top posters also tend to have the horrible habit of not trimming the
original message to only what's relevant...
> ... I have my email ordered most-recent-first, and it saves me a _lot_ of
> time, whether the individual emails are top- or bottom-posted! ...
I have my mailing lists threaded, and it's nice to be able to just read
the first message in a thread and tell my mail reader that I'm not
interested in the rest of the messages in the thread. I can't imagine
how you would do that with most-recent-first. If you just read the
latest message in a thread and find that you're not interested, you
can't just kill the thread because you don't know if that message is off
on a tangent, or if you really aren't interested in that thread.
--
Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Roger B.A. Klorese
> Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
>who haven't followed an entire thread.
>
True. But that's the point: making it easier for those who *are*
following a thread ahould be the priority.
Caleb Walker
what I receive is about top posting vs. bottom posting. Who cares
already. It was interesting for the first 100 posts but now it is old.
Hal Vaughan
> When will this off-topic thread die? Going through the list, most of
> what I receive is about top posting vs. bottom posting. Who cares
> already.
That was my point from the beginning, but it seems some people are VERY
passionate that there is only one way to post.
Why it's such a big deal to them, I'll never know, but some people don't seem
able to accept that different people do things differently.
> It was interesting for the first 100 posts but now it is old.
As one of the original posters (and with a few other posts), it was never
interesting. It went almost immediately from looking at different points of
view to several people stating, in some cases, with strong anger, that there
is only one right way, and everyone else is wrong.
It reminds me of the church school I had to teach in while I was getting my
certification. A few people listened to different points of view, the rest
went around shouting at the top of their lungs how they were right, the rest
were wrong, and anyone who didn't listen to them and do it there way was
doomed to hell.
Hal
Basajaun
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 05:26 pm, Alex Malinovich wrote:
[snip]
> > I would argue that top-posters fall into the same category as most users
> > of proprietary software. They are too lazy expend a bit of effort to
> > benefit their fellow man. Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
> > who haven't followed an entire thread. Much in the same way that users
> > of proprietary software are too lazy to find, support, or write a free
> > alternative that would benefit all of mankind.
[snip[
> That's the most self-serving, self-centered, one-sided point of view I've read
> on any tech list in years. In 3 paragraphs, you manage to insult users of
> proprietary software a number of ways, calling them self centered over and
> over, and say how FOSS people are more world oriented and less self-centered.
>
> Yet, while you are going on and on calling others self-centered, you are
> totally incapable of seeing how "Me! Me! Me!" your point of view is. As long
> as people follow your rules, they are open minded. People who don't are
> closed minded. So does it not occur to you that many people think
> differently than you, so top posting may work better for you?
[snip]
Yes, and many people could choose to believe that Mars is closer to the
Sun than the Earth, yet it would not make it true, would it?
Bottom-posting plus trimming _is_ the Good Thing to do, period. It is
not a matter of preferences. It is not a matter of your social
background, your language, your religion or your pet's name. Opinions
are like... well, everyone has one. But when talking about facts,
either something is true or it is not. Someone's opinion about a fact
is not worth as much as some other's one. Simply one is right, and the
other one is wrong, and millions of people preaching the wrong thing
don't make it right, just as the right thing is not so because some
others support it. The right thing is the right thing.
You can top-post out of selfishness or laziness, and you might be
forgiven. But don't try to sell us that you "made the great effort" of
top-posting because you thought that "it was much more readable an
generally nicer" to others.
Supporting top-posting because you either follow the threads (and don't
need the context) or don't read them at all (so the text of the very
last message can help you choose to skip the thread), is, actually,
very selfish.
Firstly, if you don't need the context to follow a thread, then don't
support top-posting, and instead support an absolute lack of quotes
(after all, if they are not needed, why make people with limited access
to the internet needlessly download them?).
Secondly, as many others have mentioned, you are disregarding the
many-many people that can, and will, reach the post when surfing the
net looking for some specific information (or not), and (correct)
bottom-posting can save their day. Or even people reading the list only
occasionally... it is better for everyone!
Just my 2 euro cents,
Basajaun
Graham Smith
>>people but I have to try and convince you to switch.
>
>
> Who died and left you to rewrite the English language?
>
No one. I ask you the same question though?
As far as I can see bottom posting has as many advantages and drawbacks
as top posting. There is very little between them. One of the biggest
arguments for bottom posting is maintaining context when reading an
archived thread. I don't remember the last time I didn't go back to the
start of an archived thread when I have found something I am interested
in. What with trimming, inlining and a mixture of top and bottom posts
the context is nearly always lost in any individual post so going back
to the start of the thread is normally necessary. I find starting at the
beginning of a thread also, normally, gives me more information about
the problem I am trying to solve.
Patrick Wiseman
On 6/10/05, Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:10:35 -0400, Patrick Wiseman <pwis...@gmail.com> said:
[...]
> Do you see why it's nice to have the context provided immediately? With
> a bottom-posted message, I can quickly scan the original message and
> recall the context that I had read before. If I have to scroll to see
> the reply (which should be very rare, if quoted text is trimmed
> properly), I just have to hit [space] once or twice, and I can easily
> tell when I've reached the reply because my mail reader colours quoted
> text.
My usual practice, actually, is to edit and interpolate, as if we were
having a conversation.
[...]
> Top posters also tend to have the horrible habit of not trimming the
> original message to only what's relevant...
That's a different issue.
> > ... I have my email ordered most-recent-first, and it saves me a _lot_ of
> > time, whether the individual emails are top- or bottom-posted! ...
>
> I have my mailing lists threaded, and it's nice to be able to just read
> the first message in a thread and tell my mail reader that I'm not
> interested in the rest of the messages in the thread. I can't imagine
> how you would do that with most-recent-first. If you just read the
> latest message in a thread and find that you're not interested, you
> can't just kill the thread because you don't know if that message is off
> on a tangent, or if you really aren't interested in that thread.
You do it your way. I'll do it mine. OK with you?
I bottom post in this forum (mostly) because it's the norm here;
etiquette probably requires that we accommodate the lowest common
denominator. But don't get all righteous about it, for heaven's sake!
Patrick
Patrick Wiseman
> On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> > I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
> > wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
> > idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
> > efficient
>
> Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it
> backwards is more efficient.
Huh?
People process information differently. Apparently, few find it more
efficient to process it in reverse order. That being so, I'll
continue to bottom post in this forum, if only to accommodate the LCD.
Cheers
Patrick
Andy Smith
> John Carline wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't care where an individual posts. But, it would make
> > my reading/following of threads much easier if I didn't have to
> > scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a long string just to
> > read the one line added to the 200 I've already read.
>
The lack of trimming by posters to this list actually seems more out
of hand than the top posting.
Of the emails here that I skip without bothering to read, the
majority are those which have so much quoted material that even on
my (48 row) terminal there is no new text visible. If they have
that problem, and a subject that isn't immediately interesting, they
do not get read.
Mark
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>
>>I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
>>wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
>>idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
>>efficient
>
>
> Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it
> backwards is more efficient.
Wait a minute, When you read a book. You start on page one and read
right to the back of the book (Or bottom of the book) when you
finish. Right?
Same (should) go for emails, you start at the top with reading, and
end up at the bottom where youre email answer begins.
Is that not the best way of making it easier for other people to
understand your email?
Still, bottom posters may be fighting a lost battle. In all the
companies i've worked for so far, there has not been a single
company with a "bottom" post policy of any kind.
These companies are usually the "exchange server" kind...
Thanks,
Mark
p.s.
Sorry Paul, for replying to you alone...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCqaGamHLz+zAEfmERAheAAJ9IPLicNSZXDA7EPhon5JaURdyKVACeKlpr
KY+xpOWDFf07MNVkX61mdqY=
=hadg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Phil Dyer
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
(I really did try to stay out of this...)
phil
Mark said:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>>>
>>>>I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
>>>>wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
>>>>idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
>>>>efficient
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it
>>> backwards is more efficient.
>
> Wait a minute, When you read a book. You start on page one and read
> right to the back of the book (Or bottom of the book) when you
> finish. Right?
>
> Same (should) go for emails, you start at the top with reading, and
> end up at the bottom where youre email answer begins.
>
> Is that not the best way of making it easier for other people to
> understand your email?
>
> Still, bottom posters may be fighting a lost battle. In all the
> companies i've worked for so far, there has not been a single
> company with a "bottom" post policy of any kind.
>
> These companies are usually the "exchange server" kind...
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> p.s.
> Sorry Paul, for replying to you alone...
--
Mike Ward
This whole thing has brought up such a great feature of gmail - quoted
text is hidden away until you want to see it. I can't even tell the
difference between bottom posting and top posting most of the time. :D
Paul Johnson
> Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
> >who haven't followed an entire thread.
>
> True. But that's the point: making it easier for those who *are*
> following a thread ahould be the priority.
No, making it easier for *everybody* should be the priority. Email
isn't all about the moment like you try to think it is. It's
preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole
thread to figure out what solved some random printing problem. Good
quoting gives them a summary in the archive without having to read
two dozen messages from six years ago in the archives.
Though if you're going to be so defensive of breaking searching the
archives, why not just change the mailing lists to a PHPNuke? That's
about as easy to deal with as top-posted messages in archives (which
is to say, like pulling teeth).
Hendrik Boom
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:20:11PM +0200, Mark wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> >
> >>I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
> >>wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
> >>idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
> >>efficient
> >
> >
> > Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it
> > backwards is more efficient.
>
> Wait a minute, When you read a book. You start on page one and read
> right to the back of the book (Or bottom of the book) when you
> finish. Right?
>
> Same (should) go for emails, you start at the top with reading, and
> end up at the bottom where youre email answer begins.
>
> Is that not the best way of making it easier for other people to
> understand your email?
>
> Still, bottom posters may be fighting a lost battle. In all the
> companies i've worked for so far, there has not been a single
> company with a "bottom" post policy of any kind.
>
> These companies are usually the "exchange server" kind...
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
Conflicting needs:
* to have all the quotes and replies in textual order, so you can
read it through in context (especially important for those reading
an archive, or jumping into an ongoing conversation)
* to see the reply first (for those who have just finished reading
the previous message)
It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
-- hendrik
Hendrik Boom
> I agree with that point exactly.
>
> PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
> poster I'm agreeing with.
I think the point you agree with is both point.
-- hendrik
P.S. What is the difference between a duck?
Paul Johnson
> Why it's such a big deal to them, I'll never know, but some people
> don't seem able to accept that different people do things
> differently.
It's already been explained to you by a large number of people
already. Maybe if you read for comprehension instead of reading for
only what you want to hear, you might have noticed that...
Paul Johnson
> It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
> reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
>
> Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
gnus fixes broken quoting for you on reply. Make top posters quote
correctly after the fact!
Hal Vaughan
> On Friday June 10 2005 12:56 am, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > Why it's such a big deal to them, I'll never know, but some people
> > don't seem able to accept that different people do things
> > differently.
>
> It's already been explained to you by a large number of people
> already. Maybe if you read for comprehension instead of reading for
> only what you want to hear, you might have noticed that...
Hi, pot. This is kettle.
Step back and get some perspective. Yours is not the only point of view, but
you don't seem to be able to see that.
Hal Vaughan
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?
Oh, nothing. I get it. Just your way of saying you think something is a fact
when it is an opinion. There's a big difference between fact and opinion and
you don't see that your "2 euro cents" is an opinion, not a fact.
> Bottom-posting plus trimming _is_ the Good Thing to do, period. It is
> not a matter of preferences. It is not a matter of your social
> background, your language, your religion or your pet's name. Opinions
> are like... well, everyone has one. But when talking about facts,
> either something is true or it is not. Someone's opinion about a fact
> is not worth as much as some other's one. Simply one is right, and the
> other one is wrong, and millions of people preaching the wrong thing
> don't make it right, just as the right thing is not so because some
> others support it. The right thing is the right thing.
Again, that's your opinion, also the opinion of others. From this thread,
it's clear it is not everyone's opinion. Yes, it is the accepted practice on
the net from way back, but that does not make it the best or only way to
post. Insisting we have to stick with something because there are some who
say it is the best or because it's tradition does not make your opinion fact.
Insisting the current or old way is the best or only way is the same type of
attitude that we saw when rock 'n' roll first started to emerge and the older
generation said it was evil and terrible and should not be tolerated. Such
people had the opinion rock was morally wrong and inferior to all other
music. They may or may not have been right, but the point is it was only
their opinion and is generally the opinion of each generation about the music
of the younger generations.
So come out of the dark ages and separate opinion from fact.
> You can top-post out of selfishness or laziness, and you might be
> forgiven. But don't try to sell us that you "made the great effort" of
> top-posting because you thought that "it was much more readable an
> generally nicer" to others.
While you may notice I inline post, I've seen many top postings that were much
easier to read than others. It may be a short 1-line "Thank you," or
something similar. In my overall experience, I know I've never had much of a
problem reading top posts, but, then again, I'm open minded and understand
that different people process information in different ways. Some are stuck
in a linear mode and others have transcended that and can process it in other
ways.
> Supporting top-posting because you either follow the threads (and don't
> need the context) or don't read them at all (so the text of the very
> last message can help you choose to skip the thread), is, actually,
> very selfish.
>
> Firstly, if you don't need the context to follow a thread, then don't
> support top-posting, and instead support an absolute lack of quotes
> (after all, if they are not needed, why make people with limited access
> to the internet needlessly download them?).
Not drawing a line -- taking an extreme case and saying it is the same as
something else. Logical fallacies like that don't work.
> Secondly, as many others have mentioned, you are disregarding the
> many-many people that can, and will, reach the post when surfing the
> net looking for some specific information (or not), and (correct)
> bottom-posting can save their day. Or even people reading the list only
> occasionally... it is better for everyone!
I know whenever I've searched and found any post with info I needed, I've
never found just one post, but the whole thread and almost always the entire
archive. Even if the one post I find has my answer, I've always gone back to
read the thread, in case something I need but don't know about is in an
earlier part of the discussion.
> Just my 2 euro cents,
Yep, your opinion.
Which you present as 100% fact.
Hal
Joe Potter
> I agree with that point exactly.
>
> PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
> poster I'm agreeing with.
>
> (I really did try to stay out of this...)
>
> phil
>
I get no points at all as it is not worth trying to figure out what the
point was.
That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
--- Joe
Phil Dyer
Hash: SHA1
:0
* ^Subject: .*Top Posting
/dev/null
plonk!
- --
/phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key: http://www.dyermaker.org/gpgkey
iD8DBQFCqazoGbd/rBLcaFwRApEUAKCBS0dHR+PtjqAOovs4jZKOCq8o1wCgkhpr
7hPqOTnCcbSs+BqA+ormvbg=
=ay7c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hal Vaughan
> On Friday June 10 2005 12:12 am, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> > Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
> > >who haven't followed an entire thread.
> >
> > True. But that's the point: making it easier for those who *are*
> > following a thread ahould be the priority.
>
> No, making it easier for *everybody* should be the priority.
But *everybody* does not think the same way! What works for some does not
work for others.
Some people don't seem to understand that.
Hal
David Dorward
> * to see the reply first (for those who have just finished reading
> the previous message)
>
> It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
> reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
This doesn't work well if you have a long response, not because the
responder failed to properly trim the message they are responding to,
but simply that they added a lot of information.
The resolution to the problem is usually a matter of trimming
irrelevent material from the quote.
That said, the mutt mail client has options to skip past blocks of
quoted content and to hide quoted content entirely (of course this
requires that the responder use the standard quoting technique of
interleaved/bottom posting and indenting quoted material with greater
than characters).
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk><http://blog.dorward.me.uk>
Roger B.A. Klorese
>That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
>of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
>destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
>
>
Outlook does it this way not to be contrary, but for an obvious reason:
it works better for the people who use it.
If you're involved in a discussion, and you're tracking it all --
because if you don't you're fired -- you want to see the most up-to-date
addition to the discussion, and for the 5% of the time you need
reminding, you can scroll down. The immediate previous bit will
probably remind you, and if not, the bit before that, etc. It's much
more useful for that sort of discussion than bottom-posting. And I'm
not speaking as a Windows-brainwashed suit -- I've been using Unix tools
since 1984 and email since 1975.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>It's
>preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole
>thread to figure out what solved some random printing problem.
>
But, in fact, most people use web-based archives in which that's exactly
how they access the messages after the original discussion.
Roberto C. Sanchez
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> >It's preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole thread to
> >figure out what solved some random printing problem.
>
>
> But, in fact, most people use web-based archives in which that's exactly how
> they access the messages after the original discussion.
>
of people invloved in the actual *discussion* are reading it a mail or
news reader, it is better to cater to that group. The fact these
discussion are archived on the web is really a side effect.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
David Nicholls
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I've got a few Debian (sarge) boxes connected to isp's via either ADSL
modems (dlink dsl-300t's) or with a internal pci adsl modems.
I've been having a few problems with dns lookups and have been given a
new set up dns servers and not the same ones placed into resolv.conf by
dhcp.
Obviously if I make a change to resolv.conf, it will be soon-after be
updated back to the original dns servers by dhcp.
I was wondering if anyone knows of a simple way to do this?
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCqbdH62r58u1gKlkRAgRAAKCwFNbE8k2Wn406ijoL8K4gOX6eLgCeNu3p
x9e9UyXfmQRyw+LjkJVfvqA=
=uNAm
Cam
file, and then stick it in your system-wide crontab. I don't know how
often it would need to run, but it should be pretty trivial.
Good luck,
Cameron Matheson
Hal Vaughan
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:29:01PM +0200, Lech Karol Paw?aszek wrote:
<snip>
> I've mused in the past about having a thread-analyser that puts back all
> the deleted parts of the message (by following the thread back, of course)
> and putting together a unified version that encapsulated the entire
> discuccion so it can be read in order. The fact that threads branch
> is a minor problem -- displaying the unified message with a tree-browser
> is even a possibility.
>
> But excessive trimming, so that it becomes hard to figure out
> what went where, is a problem.
>
> -- hendrik
That would be a really cool thing -- and even better if it could be integrated
into e-mail readers.
Hal
Hendrik Boom
> [...]
> > I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but
> > if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually
> > reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each
> > post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already
> > read. There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
>
> That's why people also should cut unnecessary pieces. And not everybody have
> to remember what the thread was about. Or reads every mail in thread. It's
> easier to "catch-up" the subject when you have all needed information in
> order.
I've mused in the past about having a thread-analyser that puts back all
the deleted parts of the message (by following the thread back, of course)
and putting together a unified version that encapsulated the entire
discuccion so it can be read in order. The fact that threads branch
is a minor problem -- displaying the unified message with a tree-browser
is even a possibility.
But excessive trimming, so that it becomes hard to figure out
what went where, is a problem.
-- hendrik
Phil Dyer
Hash: SHA1
David Nicholls said:
> I've been having a few problems with dns lookups and have been given a
> new set up dns servers and not the same ones placed into resolv.conf by
> dhcp.
>
> Obviously if I make a change to resolv.conf, it will be soon-after be
> updated back to the original dns servers by dhcp.
I do it by editing/creating /etc/dhclient-enter-hooks like so:
# redefine the function which changes resolv.conf to do nothing
make_resolv_conf() {
return
}
The other way would be to edit /etc/dhclient.conf and tell it to prepend
to the list of dns servers
prepend domain-name-servers x.x.x.x;
- --
/phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCqcl0Gbd/rBLcaFwRAtwCAJ9gis6FSUkzjZjPDfEd5SOmf9EvnACcDL+L
WrQQbGIsmExOyQO5mO080hs=
=TuFB
Cybe R. Wizard
Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> You've been around too many Outlook Express and Outlook users, then.
> Those are the only two clients that encourage top posting by default
> and make you strain to post properly, instead of the other way
> around.
My Sylpheed-claws puts the cursor at the top of replies. I think it's
so I may enjoy trimming out the irrelevant before I post below the
points to which I refer.
But maybe that's just my Way.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Q: What's the difference between MicroSoft Windows and a virus?
A: Apart from the fact that viruses are supported by their authors,
use optimized, small code and usually perform well, none.
Winduhs
Adam Hardy
> It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
> reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
>
> Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
The Mozilla folks may well be persuaded to implement this for
Thunderbird (I wonder if it's on their wishlist). There is a similar
feature in the Java Eclipse IDE called 'folding' with which code that
you don't want to see (configurable) is 'folded' out of sight with only
a line showing across the screen. Click on the line and the hidden code
unfolds.
I didn't read the whole of this thread, so someone may well have said
that already. If so, sorry.
So, what is the difference between a duck, Hendrik? It better be good. ;)
Adam
Hubert Chan
> My usual practice, actually, is to edit and interpolate, as if we were
> having a conversation.
(Did you mean interleave rather than interpolate?) Yes, that is the way
things should be. Anyone who bottom posts without appropriate trimming
or posts just a big block of text without proper interleaving also
should be taught how to reply correctly.
>>> ... I have my email ordered most-recent-first, and it saves me a
>>> _lot_ of time, whether the individual emails are top- or
>>> bottom-posted! ...
>> I have my mailing lists threaded, and it's nice to be able to just
>> read the first message in a thread and tell my mail reader that I'm
>> not interested in the rest of the messages in the thread. I can't
>> imagine how you would do that with most-recent-first. If you just
>> read the latest message in a thread and find that you're not
>> interested, you can't just kill the thread because you don't know if
>> that message is off on a tangent, or if you really aren't interested
>> in that thread.
> You do it your way. I'll do it mine. OK with you?
Sure. I just wrote what I did because you brought up how you preferred
your way and that other people should try it, and I just explained why I
like my way. I really couldn't care less how you read your email.
> I bottom post in this forum (mostly) because it's the norm here;
> etiquette probably requires that we accommodate the lowest common
> denominator.
Sure. I'm not on any lists where top-posting is the norm, but when I
correspond with other people on a personal basis, where the thread has
no branches, and so it's easy to keep track of the conversation, I tend
to write like a regular letter -- the pen and paper kind. (Why bother
keeping the context at all when the recipient already knows it?)
> But don't get all righteous about it, for heaven's sake!
I don't believe I was. I was just trying to give reasons for why I
think that top-posting (in a mailing list context) is not a good thing
to do.
--
Hubert Chan <hub...@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Ben Chong
One of the *BSD newsgroups I subscribed to used to be pretty nice. Not too much traffic, helpful people.
The last time I went online to ask a question (after some years of absence), and followed up on that question, some @#$@#% started whining about my top posting.
Which totally turned me off the newsgroup.
The important thing is : It's the content, stupid.
The value of web forums, newsgroups, mailing lists is content : information and knowledge.
You can bottom post all you want, but if the content is garbage, your post is worth zero.
If you have good info to share, and if you top post, I don't care. The info you are sharing is worth it.
Some anthropologist in the future will study the evolution of newsgroups, forums and mailing lists. My personal observation as a participant in such environments since 1993 is that these environments ALL evolve into personal fiefdoms one way or another if intolerance is allowed to fester and grow.
Some minority of users will always try to impose their unspoken rules, regulations and preferences on newcomers. I have even encountered a case where I was asked to change my NAME. Because some one else had the same name and an old timer on the list could not tell us apart (he was too lazy or stupid to look at the email address).
So top posting or bottom posting? It's like pornography: if u don't like it, don't read it. But please don't impose your morality on the rest of us.
Ben
Hendrik Boom
>
> So, what is the difference between a duck, Hendrik? It better be good. ;)
>
> Adam
One of the joys of age. You can recycle jokes from fifty years ago,
and you find new people to tell them to!
This one has a tradidional answer:
One of its legs is both the same.
-- hendrik
Hal Vaughan
<snip>
> I don't believe I was. I was just trying to give reasons for why I
> think that top-posting (in a mailing list context) is not a good thing
> to do.
I haven't been keeping track of who said what in which post, so I don't know
if I responded to you before. I do have to say I'd like to thank you for the
above statement. The biggest reason I've responded as much as I have is
because the patter *I* perceive is that those who speak against top posting
seem to speak with an almost violent passion, almost as if top posting is a
sin and those who do it should be cast forever into the pit of fire and
damnation.
I don't know if anyone has noticed that I don't top post. (Actually, I might
-- if I'm responding with a quick "Thank you," I may put it at the top. If a
post solves the problem, I might say, in one line, 'That does the job.'
Usually I'll do this when there is a lot of material in the post I'm replying
to, and it describes the whole problem and solution. I figure that way, the
response is clear and easy to see without scrolling and if someone finds that
particular post later, they know it solves the problem and all the details
are in one place.) I do understand that for most people on most lists,
bottom posting or inline posting is a preferred method. I accept that. I
also accept that what works for one does not work for all, and what works for
many can be difficult for others.
In other words, while I don't top post, I see no reason to be critical of
those who do, and I certainly see no reason for the violent reactions to
those who are open minded enough to not judge top posters.
I'm glad you not only shared your opinion and clarified here that it is what
you think. You know what I think and, since I think Kosh was right and Truth
is a 3 edged sword, I think somewhere between what I think and what you think
is the Truth.
Hal
Roberto C. Sanchez
>
> So top posting or bottom posting? It's like pornography: if u don't
> like it, don't read it. But please don't impose your morality on the
> rest of us.
>
Except that it is not morality. It is practicality in this case. If
you want to maximize the potential help you can get, bottom posting is
the way to do it in this forum.
I occasionally come into a thread somewhere in the middle or participate
in multiple branches of a thread with common origin. In cases like that
is quite useful to have the pretinent parts of the thread quoted at the
top. That doesn't mean 15 levels of quoting, just what is necessary to
give context.
Personally, I don't like it when people top post. But I don't get all
crazy on them about it. I just ignore such messages. It's that easy.
Carl Fink
> People process information differently. Apparently, few find it more
> efficient to process it in reverse order. That being so, I'll
> continue to bottom post in this forum, if only to accommodate the LCD.
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that "LCD" is an insult, right?
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
If you attempt to fix something that isn't broken, it will be.
-Bruce Tognazzini
Thomas Stivers
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:17:48 PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> I don't know if anyone has noticed that I don't top post. (Actually, I might
> -- if I'm responding with a quick "Thank you," I may put it at the top. If a
> post solves the problem, I might say, in one line, 'That does the job.'
While I can perhaps understand posting a "That does the job" message for
archival purposes. I really don't understand why anyone would send a
post containing "thank you," "I agree," 'no," "yes," Etc. to a list of
thousands. These one-liners contribute nothing but usually have a large
block of post following them wasting space and time. I'm not saying you
shouldn't be thankful, agreeable or whatever, but does the world need to
read it.
[snip]
> In other words, while I don't top post, I see no reason to be critical of
> those who do, and I certainly see no reason for the violent reactions to
> those who are open minded enough to not judge top posters.
Yehaw! We've had our Hitler reference, now we're goint to get
philisophical. Next will come a few dozen messages about ending this
"horible" off topic thread. Isn't debian-user fun.
- --
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
Thomas Stivers e-mail: stiv...@tomass.dyndns.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCqfGy5JK61UXLur0RA0gjAJ9co4ejFEHjIySv4ABNtdMAixOFCQCfeFle
3MeayhJwZzOiWmIrhngf0NE=
=TvRS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hal Vaughan
><snip>
> While I can perhaps understand posting a "That does the job" message for
> archival purposes. I really don't understand why anyone would send a
> post containing "thank you," "I agree," 'no," "yes," Etc. to a list of
> thousands. These one-liners contribute nothing but usually have a large
> block of post following them wasting space and time. I'm not saying you
> shouldn't be thankful, agreeable or whatever, but does the world need to
> read it.
I can see various reasons for the different comments you mentioned, depending
on the context of the thread, it might help if someone involved makes it
clear s/he agrees with a particular piece of advice or feels it is correct.
A "no" could have a similar useful message. A "thank you" could also be,
aside from just plain courtesy, a way to indicate that a solution works, but
that may be getting nit-picky on phrasing, since it would indicate the same
as "It works!"
Hal
Carl Fink
> Carl Fink wrote:
>
> >Just out of curiosity: you do realize that "LCD" is an insult, right?
> >
> >
Least Common Denominator.
Caleb Walker
>Just out of curiosity: you do realize that "LCD" is an insult, right?
>
>
What is LCD?
--
Caleb Walker
Top Gun Drywall Supply, Inc.
559-276-5161
Joe Potter
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
>
>>Carl Fink wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just out of curiosity: you do realize that "LCD" is an insult, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What is LCD?
>
>
> Least Common Denominator.
I thought it was Last Chick Drunk.
--Joe
Ben Chong
Same approach for people (top posters) who have difficulty strolling down multiple pages to extract relevant info.
The point is : if you think that the posting has info that is important enough, you will make the effort to read. If not, you should be doing something else more productive.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <rob...@familiasanchez.net>
Sent: Jun 10, 2005 11:12 AM
To: debia...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Top posting
Personally, I don't like it when people top post. But I don't get all
crazy on them about it. I just ignore such messages. It's that easy.
--
Joe Potter
> Joe Potter wrote:
>
>> That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
>> of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
>> destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Outlook does it this way not to be contrary, but for an obvious reason:
> it works better for the people who use it.
>
> If you're involved in a discussion, and you're tracking it all --
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better. Gates is a cancer, and the after life will be warm
in his case if there is justice.
--
Joe
Alex Malinovich
--snip--
> You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
> --- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
> who can do no better. Gates is a cancer, and the after life will be warm
> in his case if there is justice.
Amen to that! I feel like contributing to chemotherapy research right
now! :)
--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
Olle Eriksson
> Joe Potter wrote:
> >That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
> >of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
> >destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
>
> Outlook does it this way not to be contrary, but for an obvious reason:
> it works better for the people who use it.
>
> If you're involved in a discussion, and you're tracking it all --
> because if you don't you're fired -- you want to see the most
> up-to-date addition to the discussion, and for the 5% of the time you
> need reminding, you can scroll down. The immediate previous bit will
> probably remind you, and if not, the bit before that, etc. It's much
> more useful for that sort of discussion than bottom-posting. And I'm
> not speaking as a Windows-brainwashed suit -- I've been using Unix
> tools since 1984 and email since 1975.
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use bottom-posting with
html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called. And while plain text is
better in most situations, I have to admit there are situations where
formatted text can be useful. For example, sometimes you want to include
an image at a certain position in the e-mail, underline, make text bold,
color a certain text, include links without cluttering the text with long
http addresses. I use that when I paste code snippets and colored code
diffs, include links to defect reports etc in my daily work. And I
suppose we shouldn't forget all the other non-technical people who want
to format their e-mails with background images and fancy type faces.
Anyway, finding a technical solution that allows that to be combined with
bottom-posting would probably be difficult to implement, although I would
love to see it. Sadly Lotus Notes doesn't seem to handle it very well,
same as Outlook and the like.
--
Olle Eriksson
ma...@olle-eriksson.com | http://www.olle-eriksson.com