But then we'd make secret jokes and snide comments so that the bottom post-readers wouldn't see it, or vice versa :o).
On 6/23/06, RBW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well one thing that would suck it seems it a list that mixed top and bottom posting because the list members couldn't agree ;^) (see below) Nicholas Wheeler wrote: > I've been using Linux for over seven years and, until this list, I've > never > heard anyone complaining about top-posting vs bottom-posting. I think > it's > silly to think one way is right -- regardless of your preference of > client. > The purpose of having a 'subject' line is to inform the reader of the > e-mail > what the subject of the e-mail is about, so some people are capable of > remembering the last things written, and could therefore get right to the > point and read the new information, while other people less capable of > remembering the last things written have to scroll down to remember > what is > written. Then they complain that this is an inconvenience. If the > person had > bottom-posted, then everyone would have to scroll down equally. So, > basically, in my opinion I don't think there is one 'right' way, and > I'm not > sure there's an overwhelming support of bottom-posting by geeks -- I > mean, > seven years is a bit of time to not notice this issue, and I've been on a > lot of lists. I personally prefer to read/write top posts, why would I > want > to scroll down to read information I've already read? Bottom/middle > posting > is only useful when you have to comment on several different subjects > in the > same e-mail. > > > ps: The best way to take down the internet is to start a flamewar. > > On 6/23/06, RBW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Tracy R Reed wrote: >> >> >Todd Walton wrote: >> > >> > >> >>The trimming part takes care of that. How long did it take you to >> >>scroll down to get through what I just quoted? Probably it didn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Outlook is entirely to blame. It divides the window in half >> horizontally >> >and many users run at lower resolutions than those of us who know >> how to >> >set up our computers. So they only see a few lines of the email at a >> >time. A dozen quoted lines causes them to have to scroll and feel >> >inconvenienced. The fact that Outlook doesn't do quoting properly and >> >puts the cursor at the top of the email to compose a reply doesn't help >> >either. So many people have jumped onto the net and started doing email >> >in the last few years using Outlook that they do not realize that there >> >has already been an established way of replying to email for many >> years. >> >This has been a peeve of mine for ages, especially since a coworker >> at a >> >former job complained to my boss that I wasn't quoting my emails >> >"correctly" which to him was Outlook-style. >> > >> > >> > >> I always wonder what guys like that would complain about if they saw >> other people using the restroom... >> >> Anyway, I remember when I first got exposed to Linux, way back in the >> stacks and stacks of slackware floppies days, by a friend of mine who >> later became my boss in the university I worked at. My boss was a real >> thorn in the side of the C&IT (Computing and Info Tech) guys about tech >> issues and what the students in our college of science needed and didn't >> need. They got fed up with him and gave him @$70K and said, "buy your >> own stuff and leave us alone". So he bought a sparc10 with all the >> fixins, several managed switches and a couple routers and other wish >> list stuff. Well the first thing we did was setup sendmail and start >> handing out e-mail shell accounts with Pine as the MUA. The demand for >> these accounts went through the roof because we only handed them out to >> the students in our college making it necessary for other students and >> other colleges to try to (I'll be nice) falsify their way into an e-mail >> account. Now aside from the cool story of my boss and how he tilted at >> windmills and beat the C&IT priesthood who I actually heard with my own >> ears say, "Why do students need e-mail?", the interesting thing about >> the students was that they top posted. I never really thought about it >> because I will reply post in the manner the other person is used to >> replying. >> >> It wasn't until I joined lists like this with "real" computer types that >> I ever bottom posted. Nowadays, everyone but geekdom (affectionately so >> named ;^) top posts, probably for the reasons Tracy notes. But way back >> then I always thought it made sense because if I am having a >> conversation with someone I only need to see/refer to their latest >> missive to continue the conversation with them. If it is a conversation >> I am joining it is basically like a real verbal conversation in which >> you hear the latest exchange (a pun and a dirty word in this context ;^) >> and you have to do something *extra* to get to what has already >> transpired. The whole idea of bottom posting and scrolling past >> everything that has already been said and then to alleviate the burden >> of having to scroll past sometimes a ton of lines you have to engage in >> editing of your own previous content as well as the content of others... >> Well OK cool, that's the way it is done here. But I wouldn't expect >> anyone beyond us tech savvy people to follow along with that kind of >> reasoning. Especially since unlike us where we have a conscious hold on >> each other for conformity and awareness, the average Joe views their >> online behavior (and falsely so) as entirely personal, entirely a matter >> of their own invention and entirely confidential, Outlook behavior >> modification not withstanding. >> >> For the normal garden variety e-mail user bottom reply posting is all >> rather much when they are more comfortable with one word and one line >> e-mail replies (although they will yak on forever about nothing, sharing >> unlimited personal info while using a cell phone in circumstances that >> other people can't remove themselves from...). One of the interesting >> things that happens to me is that if I have the opportunity to respond >> to an e-mail from a regular Joe, and probable MS user, I try to reply by >> doing inline responses as we also do. Appearantly that isn't at all >> usual in the "real" world of e-mail because in my anecdotal experience I >> get return replies of wonder and amazement of how great that technique >> is as a way to respond in detail. >> >> I never could figure out why the psychology on this was so different >> between geeks and the average Joe. While I agree Outlook (never used it, >> never will... I would use Pine or Mutt or something first) probably made >> things completely the way they are now, I do remember people finding it >> totally natural to top post before Outlook though... >> >> And BTW I just fired up Mutt and a reply places the cursor at the top >> also... >> >> rbw >> >> >> -- >> [email protected] >> http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list >> > > > Well one thing that would suck it seems is a list that mixed top and bottom posting because the list members couldn't agree ;^) (I bet top AND bottom posting could be programmed in (?)) rbw -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
-- Nicholas Wheeler Systems Administrator Development InfoStructure -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
