Top vs. Bottom Posting.
in [General]
|
From: Ashley Sheridan on 24 Mar 2010 21:32 but no book I know of in English reads like that unless you prefer to read bottom to top which makes it very difficult to read afterwards because all the comments on the thread appear out of order Top posting doesn't make sense Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
From: Robert Cummings on 24 Mar 2010 22:17 I'm sorry, but I've never had problem reading backwards in time through information. One merely understands that a piece of information is dependent on the next. Seriously, hasn't anyone else ever read history starting with now and then working their way backwards? It's just reverse chronological order! :B Cheers, Rob. Ashley Sheridan wrote: > but no book I know of in English reads like that > > unless you prefer to read bottom to top > > which makes it very difficult to read afterwards > > because all the comments on the thread appear out of order > > Top posting doesn't make sense > > > > > Thanks, > Ash > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
From: Robert Cummings on 25 Mar 2010 02:43 Rene Veerman wrote: > +1 for top-posting.. > > proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're > replying to, and deleting the rest. > > ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who > like that style of quoting. > they want everyone to conform to their favorite method, so they can > read more efficiently. Adherence to standards generally makes lives easier. Since the netiquette document likely pre-dates your cognitive awareness of the Internet, I think you're in poor company to ignore it. Iconoclasm can be a fun lifestyle, but sometimes iconoclasts are just pricks. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
From: Daniel Egeberg on 25 Mar 2010 05:27 On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 07:28, Rene Veerman <rene7705(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for top-posting.. > > proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're > replying to, and deleting the rest. So why are you not doing it? > ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who > like that style of quoting. > they want everyone to conform to their favorite method, so they can > read more efficiently. It's not laziness. It's just easier reading from top to bottom than having to jump around in the text like you have to when people are top posting. On the contrary, I would say it's more lazy just dumping the entire email you're replying to on the bottom without trimming things that are irrelevant to your reply, advertisements (die Hotmail!), mailing list footers, signatures, etc. > however, given that this is a tips-list, i'd like this bottom posting > rule removed from the mailinglist rules. > it's been used yesterday as a way to attack me on a second front > during a heated debate about the future evolution of php > (threading+shared-mem).. up until yesterday, nobody complained about > my top-posting, because the tips i give are apparently considered > useful. > > And thats the point eh? The quality of the tips? The point is that it's easier to read correspondence when things are formatted properly with *inline* quoting. This becomes even more important on mailing lists where there are multiple participants, and on threads like the one you are referring to that is now up to 228 replies. > Seriously, programmers who are not flexible enough to accept tips in a > top _or_ bottom _or_ mixed format.... > It sounds really silly to me. It has nothing to do with flexibility. It's easier reading inline posted replies than top posted replies. That's how quoting works all other places as well. It also makes it easier to address multiple points in an email when you are inline posting. It's very clear what you are referring to. Any proper client will differentiate visually between quotes and and non-quotes, so if you can remember *all* the emails in the thread you can just skip over the quotes. > Pushing all other humans to use your habits is silly when you can code > an addon for any email program that puts things in the right order. Sorry, that's just ridiculous. Why should we code a plugin that fixes your emails to put them in the right order when you can just do it from the start? You're even acknowledging that you're posting in the wrong order now. -- Daniel Egeberg
From: "Robert P. J. Day" on 25 Mar 2010 05:35
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Rene Veerman wrote: > +1 for top-posting.. *sigh*. you're joking, right? you're seriously telling me that there are people who are still sufficiently ignorant and childish that they're still fighting this top- versus bottom-posting war? the war is over. the consensus is that bottom-posting, accompanied by sufficient trimming of extraneous material, is the norm. it's accepted. it's documented. it's the standard. if you can't deal with that, then i suggest you find another medium for communication. honestly, i can't take another one of these idiotic top- versus bottom-posting debates. while this mailing list has been immensely useful so far, i'm unsubscribing. when the whiny children on this list have either grown up or moved on, let me know. life is too short to fight these same bullshit battles over and over again. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ======================================================================== |