On 2011-11-05, at 7:09 PM, Michael Pavling wrote: > I don't understand what you're saying here. > I'm talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together - > not just the confusion of an individual reader. > When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email, > there's lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with > interleaving, there's generally less confusion. I'm suggesting that > the developers add the functionality of thread organisation to attempt > to compensate for the situation that has resulted from people not > being able to compose messages nicely. > I'm not implying that it's the developers' *fault* there's top-posting > (unless they're the developers of Outlook ;-)And you don't seem to > have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It was suggested to a > poster not to top-post, because the people (or at least a large > portion of them) that are attempting to help would find it easier to > help if their messages were composed differently. > So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their > "preference", they're being deliberately ignorant of the simple > requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little > courtesy goes a long way. > Now, now. It's all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward > snide, I'll abstain. > So you agree... they're not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-) > > (re-posted as a top-post as an experiment on the clarity of the format...) > > On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote: >> >>> On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Actually, it doesn't. >>>>> >>>>> What doesn't what? >>>> >>>> See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing >>>> what was quoted down below. >>> >>> I'm sure you're trying to be interestingly ironic, but you're shooting >>> yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference" >>> to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this >>> instance, it's common to put some form of indicator to the footnote >>> (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the >>> reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you >>> write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib. >> >> Well, you're just wrong then. I'm not trying to be ironic at all. I >> actually don't like hipsters. >> >> And I disagree. I'm responding to what I am quoting. Hopefully what's >> quotes is what the current reply is commenting about. That's why one would >> quote something, as a reference. If not, why would it be quoted at all? >> >>>> Many people don't like this format of interspersing. They find it highly >>>> confusing. >>> >>> Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not >>> going to stop encouraging them to get better at it… >> >> Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format >> emails the way you want them. >> >>> On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-) >> >> For you. Some people don't find it easier. :-P >> >>>>>> Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved. >>>>> >>>>> Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance". >>>> >>>> Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google's hitlist I >>>> sent before. >>> >>> No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly >>> in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure, >>> lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the >>> noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause >>> confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of >>> discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise >>> to some confusion on occasion). >> >> See, it isn't about you. It's not ignorance because you say so. There's >> plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you. And while >> I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn't the only way out >> there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people's logic. >> >>> Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser. >> >> For your expectations, sure. I don't mind it. THAT is my point. >> >>>> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization? >>> >>> As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails? >> >> So now it's a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how >> to use email? >> >>>> Honestly, I think this is a dead topic. >>> >>> It's certainly kicking strongly. >> >> It's dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own >> needs. >> >>>> I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit >>>> much. >>> >>> But again; this is contradictory, because you're asking people *not* >>> to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never >>> good ;-) >> >> No, I'm saying don't bitch when people do things their way. Please, with >> all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven't >> read what I have put. I'm continuing to repeat myself here, and you still >> don't get it. Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet >> again? If anything, you're demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you >> still won't get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness >> of a thread or a point. >> >> What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts >> instead of expecting others to format properly. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
