Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting
individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the
list; why in the world would I want that clutter in
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting
> > individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the
> > list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox?
>
> Huh, you
On 12/15/07, Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
L > Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
O > I > me too.
L > t >
> ' > On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
> s >> "Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> n Joshua D. Drake, 11
Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
I > me too.
t >
' > On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
s >> "Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Thomas Kellerer wrote:
n Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43:
o > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008
Lew wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is
that every time I reply, I have to:
(1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather
than the list
(2) delete all t
Lew wrote:
> Trevor Talbot wrote:
>> On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is
>>> that every time I reply, I have to:
>>>
>>> (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather
>>> than the
Gregory Williamson wrote:
* Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* !
Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the
thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from
*all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make every
Gregory Williamson wrote:
Well, off to top post on some other forums ... ;-)
statman wrote:
Should that not be "Well, off to post on some other
fora"? 8¬>
No. It /can/ be, but it /needn't/ be. Actually, saying "fora" is variously
considered affected, pompous or silly, and is done either
Keith Turner wrote:
Thank you for your response. What may be obvious to some isn't always to
others. It's never a bad idea to remind users how you want your data
formatted if there are roadblocks that are not obvious on the surface.
Most newsreaders, not just Thunderbird, use the posts' heade
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is
that every time I reply, I have to:
(1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather
than the list
(2) delete all the individua
Em Wednesday 12 December 2007 10:39:32 Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
>
> It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more
> so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something
> stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as
> top-posters, e
Em Tuesday 11 December 2007 15:47:27 Joshua D. Drake escreveu:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:37:27 +
>
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Gregory Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> > > attachments, is for the sole u
me too.
On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
>"Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>>> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43:
O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If
you are still a top poster, you obviously don't ca
Gregory Williamson wrote:
Peter Childs caused electrons to shape a message:
>
> On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled
mail
> > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if
I'm the
"Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43:
>>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
>>> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
>>> content that you are replying to, to hav
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage peop
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43:
>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
>> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
>> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
>
> I personally find
Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43:
O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lo
Guy Rouillier wrote:
> (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then
> change that from CC to TO
Why do you do that? It's unnecessary.
> (3) change my from identity to the one used for the list; although the list
> always posts to the identity I have set up for maili
Peter Childs caused electrons to shape a message:
>
> On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail
> > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the
> > one that posted the questio
On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail
> reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the
> one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with
> hammers over thi
On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is
> that every time I reply, I have to:
>
> (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather
> than the list
>
> (2) delete all the individual addressees
On 12/11/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800
> "Keith Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
> > subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on
> > the list in
Gregory Williamson wrote:
* a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server.
Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a
problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to your
expectations.
I'm guessing you use Outlook to connect to you
Greg Stark shaped the electrons to read:
> "Obe, Regina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail
> > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm
> > the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going
"Obe, Regina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail
> reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm
> the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people
> with hammers over this minor infra
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've
> carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some
> top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix
> the format, reply,
On 11/12/2007 17:41, Bill Moran wrote:
Again, you're asking a community to offer you free help in spite of the
fact that your tools suck. I'm not saying nobody will do it, all I'm
saying is that if you make it too difficult for people to help, they
won't.
I think this is the most important po
: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +000
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've
> carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some
> top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix
> the format, reply,
Steve Atkins wrote:
In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content
- and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a
smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for
future reference.
And it is quite common for tractor trailers
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
> >
> > Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On a mailing list, p
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
> think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
> read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
> I think they
On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking
in the
sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract
intelligent replies. I don't
On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the
> sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract
> intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to
> skip top
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous
content
- and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a
smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:37:27 +
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Gregory Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended re
On Tuesday 11. December 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
> get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the
sense that a well-formed inline
In response to "Gregory Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous
> content
> - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a
> smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for
> future reference.
> Those who ra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:39 -0700
"Gregory Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very
> > common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just
> > very ignorant customers.
"Gregory Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those
> provisions. Any
Gregory Williamson wrote:
* Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own
(admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced.
* Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* !
Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in
the thing.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
> > have to be followed
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
> be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
> text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."
Indeed, and that's why a
On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +
"Raymond O'Donnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
//
Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:
* Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
* Don't start a new thread by repl
On Dec 11, 2007 10:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
> > are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
> > content t
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +
"Ra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
> have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
> lines of quoted text followed
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
There are those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +
"Raymond O'Donnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> //
> Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:
>
> * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
>
> * Don't start a new thread by re
On 11/12/2007 14:57, Richard Huxton wrote:
It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone
who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email
works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty
of guidelines.
It might be a go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800
"Keith Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
> subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on
> the list information page, o
am Tue, dem 11.12.2007, um 14:57:57 + mailte Richard Huxton folgendes:
> Keith Turner wrote:
> >Someone scolding wrote:
I wrote this ;-)
> >
> >Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
> >difference'.
>
> I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding.
on [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:58 AM
To: Keith Turner
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Keith Turner wrote:
> Someone scolding wrote:
>
> Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
> diffe
Keith Turner wrote:
Someone scolding wrote:
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.
I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as
polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their
international nature
Someone scolding wrote:
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.
(don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every
mail contains references-header)
I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
subj
57 matches
Mail list logo
