Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:43:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Absolutely. The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate >> the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that. The point >> is to

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:43:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Absolutely. The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate > the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that. The point > is to *briefly* remind readers what it is that you're responding to. > If you can't be

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

George: On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:23 AM, George Neuner wrote: > I agree 100%. But excessive brevity can make it so a reader can't > follow the conversation. Users of web forums often assume *you* can > easily look back up the thread because *they* can. In my experience,

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

Tom Lane schrieb am 11.05.2017 um 19:43: > Bottom posting without trimming is just an awful combination: > whatever you do, don't do that. Amen to that. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

Alvaro Herrera writes: > George Neuner wrote: >> I agree 100%. But excessive brevity can make it so a reader can't >> follow the conversation. Users of web forums often assume *you* can >> easily look back up the thread because *they* can. In my experience, >> it

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

George Neuner wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:43:52 -0400, Tom Lane > wrote: > >Personally, when I've scrolled down through a couple of pages of quoted > >and re-quoted text and see no sign of it ending any time soon, I tend > >to stop reading. > > I agree 100%. But

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:43:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >... The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate >the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that. The point >is to *briefly* remind readers what it is that you're responding to. >If you can't be

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

On 12/05/17 05:04, Francisco Olarte wrote: Slightly unrelated... On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: It is normal on this list not to top post, but rather to add comments at the end (so people can see the context) - though interspersed comments

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

Francisco Olarte writes: > Slightly unrelated... > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Gavin Flower > wrote: >> It is normal on this list not to top post, but rather to add comments at the >> end (so people can see the context) - though

Re: [GENERAL] Top posting....

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Francisco Olarte wrote: > Slightly unrelated... > > ​ > > > Full quoting ( I mean the people which even quotes others signatures ) > is especially ugly, combined with top posting I feel it as insulting ( > to me it feels as 'you do not

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Bruce Momjian wrote: I do top-post if I am asking _about_ the email, rather than addressing its content, like Is this a TODO item? You don't want to trim the email because it has context that might be needed for the reply, and bottom-posting just makes it harder to find my question, and the

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Joshua D. Drake wrote: Don't put this one on me :). This is a community thing. AndrewS reply aside, if you review the will of the community on this you will see that top posting is frowned upon. I will be the first to step up and pick a fight when I think the community is being dumb (just

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Andrew Sullivan wrote: We run this list in English, note. Is that because it's better than Latin? No: it's because more of the participants like it that way. I bet if we had a lot of Latin speakers, we'd have made a different decision. And yes, there's a certain amount of circularity in such

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Ron St-Pierre wrote: I agree that top-posting can sometimes be easier to read. However, from the perspective of someone who *often* searches the archives for answers it is usually *much* easier to find a complete problem/solution set when the responses are bottom posted and/or interleaved.

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On 12/12/2007, Stephen Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am subscribed to some other technical mailing lists on which the standard is top posting. Those people claim that filing through interleaved quotes or scrolling to the bottom just to see a sentence or two is a waste of their time. It is

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Gregory Stark wrote: We're not goldfish, we can remember the topic of discussion for at least a few hours. So can Goldfish. Apparently they have a 3-month+ memory. http://nootropics.com/intelligence/smartfish.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_1)#Goldfish_Memory With a

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Peter Childs wrote: On 12/12/2007, *Stephen Cook* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am subscribed to some other technical mailing lists on which the standard is top posting. Those people claim that filing through interleaved quotes or scrolling to the bottom

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Andrew Sullivan 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 that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

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. That's because the real sin

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Joshua D. Drake wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:12 -0500 Thomas Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to top

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:12 -0500 Thomas Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to top post. If you're keeping up on

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

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 think that I'm the only one who

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Collin Kidder wrote: Scott Marlowe wrote: On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Thomas Hart wrote: I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

John D. Burger wrote: Thomas Hart wrote: I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the relevant information is right there, and if you

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. We're not goldfish, we can

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:44:31PM +, Gregory Stark wrote: Seriously, do you have any trouble following the discussion even though I only clipped two sentences of your message? If you did would you have any trouble finding the original message to reread it? No, but (1) I have been doing

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Thomas Hart wrote: As an illustration, which helps you understand the preceding paragraph better, the extract above, or the mess below? You raise some good points, and I agree with them. However if you want to have an intelligent conversation, try not to load it with questions like Do

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to fuel

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Joshua D. Drake wrote: Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the energy spent

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

I felt I was 'responding in kind' wrt 'it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it.' posting. My apologies if I've taken it to a level of rude that it had not already reached. I suppose that the post was probably directed

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Collin Kidder wrote: Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the energy spent

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Dec 11, 2007 2:58 PM, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Dec 11, 2007 1:01 PM, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

I agree with Joshua on this point. It's entirely possible to discuss this without resorting to immaturity. If you make a decent point, then diminish it by cursing or insulting everybody here, you've lost the point and it's effectiveness entirely. Yes, once again, I apologize. At times I

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Collin Kidder wrote: Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

In response to Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Geoffrey wrote: Collin Kidder wrote: I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Gregory Stark wrote: Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you wouldn't have all the context, and you might

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Collin Kidder wrote: I believe that my conforming to the rule shows that I am willing to cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list. That they cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you that the real problem we've been talking about is

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

On Tuesday 11 December 2007 16:11, Scott Marlowe wrote: snip read the old messages in this thread, you'll see that I too said it was perfectly acceptable some times. Things like Thanks, that solved it! are fine top posted, although you really should crop the majority of the message you're

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Thomas Hart wrote: 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). A I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style generally accepted in the list, but to

Re: [GENERAL] top posting

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: 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,