Gasping for air
in [FreeBSD]
|
Prev: Strange DHCP issue
Next: tv tuner card support?
From: Dominic Fandrey on 14 Mar 2010 16:46 On 14/03/2010 14:49, MacPherson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:54:06 +0100, > Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze(a)bsdforen.de> wrote: >> >-- >> >A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. >> >Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > ... > > For everyone with a current grip on the context --which, of > course, will be the majority of the participants, having to > scroll past the same large blocks of already-read text over and > over again ... I see, it's still September. I would be amused, if this wasn't so sad. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Indi on 14 Mar 2010 21:59 On 2010-03-14, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze(a)bsdforen.de> wrote: > > I see, it's still September. > > I would be amused, if this wasn't so sad. > They don't call it "eternal" for nothing. :( -- Caveat utilitor, indi
From: Dominic Fandrey on 15 Mar 2010 03:03 On 15/03/2010 03:47, mikea wrote: > Indi <indi(a)satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote in <805ijbFh6iU1(a)mid.individual.net>: >> On 2010-03-14, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze(a)bsdforen.de> wrote: >>> >>> I see, it's still September. >>> >>> I would be amused, if this wasn't so sad. >>> >> >> They don't call it "eternal" for nothing. >> :( > > Today is 6040 September 1993 GMT. You guys soothe my tormented heart. ;) -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Bob Melson on 17 Mar 2010 12:14 On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:41, MacPherson (anonymous(a)example.com) opined: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:47:03 +0000, > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo(a)eircom.net> wrote: > >>You have missed the very important point about appropriate >>snippage. There should never be reams of old content to scroll through, >>just enough to establish the context of the response. > > And does everyone do that? Not in my experience. Not > everywhere. In some ngs the convention is (or was) to leave > everything in for at least the past 4-5 posts in case someone's > isp loses one or more of the context posts. > > *I* do vigorous snippage, but that's partly because I've been > around forever and partly for other reasons related to language > use, comprehension, etc. On the other hand, if I've only one > block of text in my response, I have no problem top-posting it. > >>Actually it's not bottom posting that is ever advocated it is >>interspersing replies where they are relevant which is the time honoured >>convention of USENET. > > Then people like Fandrey shouldn't post dogmatic, contentious > sigs like the one that caught my eye/ire. If the problem > doesn't exist, why would someone object to it? For points? The > mistaken idea that he's being witty? > > I don't think I've ever seen anyone interleave their responses > _and_ put them above the scraps being responded-to. It might > happen, I suppose, but only if the poster is intentionally trying > to annoy or, perhaps, is dyslexic, which are both more general > problems. > > I'm probably making more out of this than it, itself, is worth, > but I believe it could be shown that 80% of the trouble we're in > in the world is down to people who should know better acting as > though their personal prejudices have the status of physical law. > The anti-top-posting prejudice is a case in point. Personally, I can go either way, although I much _prefer_ bottom posting, which seems to me to be the way most people read - from the top down. I become annoyed if I have to jump back and forth between the top and the bottom of a post, just to see what has gone before. That having been said, let's admit that this is a religious issue - high church vs. low church, Gulliver's big-endian vs. little-endian - and leave it at that. The bottom posters will never convince the top posters, nor vice versa. And, if you're going to take umbrage at a poster's sig, how 'bout taking on those with a gazillion lines of clever ascii graphics, eh? Bob Melson -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing. Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: Indi on 17 Mar 2010 12:25
On 2010-03-17, MacPherson <anonymous(a)example.com> wrote: > > Then people like Fandrey shouldn't post dogmatic, contentious > sigs like the one that caught my eye/ire. > Surely you're not advocating censorhip of sigs? > > I'm probably making more out of this than it, itself, is worth, > but I believe it could be shown that 80% of the trouble we're in > in the world is down to people who should know better acting as > though their personal prejudices have the status of physical law. > Ironic. > The anti-top-posting prejudice is a case in point. > It isn't a "prejudice", it's a de facto standard by tradition. Respect it or don't but please don't get into a snit over an *educational* sig. -- Caveat utilitor, indi |