At 09:33 AM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:40:26 -0500 in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe
Polk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, I understand that top-posting or not-posting is really import to
> some people but to go so far as to say it's harmful is a bit of a
> stretch. For some it's just following the natural order of email
> clients, most of which cursor the top.
They place the cursor at the top to encourage the trimming of the
quoted material, not so that people can just start typing merrily away
without formatting their post correctly.
The really bad ones also place the sig above the quoted material and
make people think that they should start typing there. The 'natural
order of email clients', as you put it, existed long before a certain
company flooded the market with a client that exposed newcomers to
these bad habits before they had learned from the old-timers the
sensible way of doing things that had been around since the dawn of
email.
zat right? back in '86, when i first got on the net (am i an old
timer?) i used elm. cursor at the top of replies. i 'top posted' back
then sometimes. only since 2000 or so has there been this annoying
catterwalling about how 'bad' topposting is. sure, on a mailing list,
it can make a difference. i've never had much trouble understanding
messages that were top posted though. it's not that huge a cognitive
disconnect. i realize the 'is harmful' term goes back to Tom
Christensen's famous (infamous?) article "Csh programming considered
harmful", and is more a respectful nod to that bit of internet
history rather than actually implying that it really is 'harmful'.
but, much in line with the mention of old-timers above - not a lot of
newcomers are familiar with that article.
oof. i'm losing focus. i should never reply before my second cup of coffee.
Paul Theodoropoulos
http://www.anastrophe.com
http://www.smileglobal.com
http://www.forumgarden.com
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
