Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is wrong-posting, and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scroll down if I need to refresh my memory as to the context. I am not a newby - I've been in the computer business for 26 years, and on the internet about as long as there was one (BBSs before that - top posting was quite common then, too). I do agree that the poster should trim out non-relevant material from prior posts, though. Regards, Charlie Noah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Without interposting, you have no idea where the reply fits into the thread. If you are a reader that typically reads through an entire thread, when it's essentially dead, and don't mind the occasional reply that's out of place because somebody has their clock out of sync, or the time zone set incorrectly, then that's fine for you. But top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else. The byte flow problem, is the one that directly affects Cliff and the digests. Unfortunately, 99.% of Top-Posters neglect to trim the quoted message to the relevant material. That wastes huge amounts of bandwidth. [snip] There really are no valid reasons to top-post, but there are plenty of valid reasons to inter-post and trim the quoted material. That's why it's been a flameable action on Usenet for over twenty years. Top-posting has only become more common in recent years because OE and a few other email/newsreader hybrids (that really don't do either well) make it tough to reply correctly and newbies are showing up everyday, not just in the first couple of weeks in September. Insisting on top-posting and not trimming the quoted material, especially when there's replies that have already been right-posted (aka inter-posted), I hate to say it, is just plain rude and self serving. Please take a moment and read the material listed in the two links previously provided. If you missed them, here they are again: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Ray -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
If it's not at the top it generally goes in the deleted folder. I haven't got time to go searching through the text for an answer. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is wrong-posting, and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scroll down if I need to refresh my memory as to the context. I am not a newby - I've been in the computer business for 26 years, and on the internet about as long as there was one (BBSs before that - top posting was quite common then, too). I do agree that the poster should trim out non-relevant material from prior posts, though. Regards, Charlie Noah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Without interposting, you have no idea where the reply fits into the thread. If you are a reader that typically reads through an entire thread, when it's essentially dead, and don't mind the occasional reply that's out of place because somebody has their clock out of sync, or the time zone set incorrectly, then that's fine for you. But top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else. The byte flow problem, is the one that directly affects Cliff and the digests. Unfortunately, 99.% of Top-Posters neglect to trim the quoted message to the relevant material. That wastes huge amounts of bandwidth. [snip] There really are no valid reasons to top-post, but there are plenty of valid reasons to inter-post and trim the quoted material. That's why it's been a flameable action on Usenet for over twenty years. Top-posting has only become more common in recent years because OE and a few other email/newsreader hybrids (that really don't do either well) make it tough to reply correctly and newbies are showing up everyday, not just in the first couple of weeks in September. Insisting on top-posting and not trimming the quoted material, especially when there's replies that have already been right-posted (aka inter-posted), I hate to say it, is just plain rude and self serving. Please take a moment and read the material listed in the two links previously provided. If you missed them, here they are again: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Ray -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
QUOTING NAG Please refrain from quoting all of a message when replying to one or more points in it. The general guideline of netiquette when replying to messages is that you should quote only about four lines of the *most recent* post for each point to which you are responding. If you are replying to several points, do not top-post. Quote four or five lines, add your point, quote some more, add your point, etc. And quoting an entire thread is always inappropriate in a discussion list or newsgroup. Your assistance is reducing the data smog is appreciated. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jerry Banker wrote: If it's not at the top it generally goes in the deleted folder. I haven't got time to go searching through the text for an answer. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is wrong-posting, and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scroll down if I need to refresh my memory as to the context. I am not a newby - I've been in the computer business for 26 years, and on the internet about as long as there was one (BBSs before that - top posting was quite common then, too). I do agree that the poster should trim out non-relevant material from prior posts, though. Regards, Charlie Noah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Without interposting, you have no idea where the reply fits into the thread. If you are a reader that typically reads through an entire thread, when it's essentially dead, and don't mind the occasional reply that's out of place because somebody has their clock out of sync, or the time zone set incorrectly, then that's fine for you. But top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else. The byte flow problem, is the one that directly affects Cliff and the digests. Unfortunately, 99.% of Top-Posters neglect to trim the quoted message to the relevant material. That wastes huge amounts of bandwidth. [snip] There really are no valid reasons to top-post, but there are plenty of valid reasons to inter-post and trim the quoted material. That's why it's been a flameable action on Usenet for over twenty years. Top-posting has only become more common in recent years because OE and a few other email/newsreader hybrids (that really don't do either well) make it tough to reply correctly and newbies are showing up everyday, not just in the first couple of weeks in September. Insisting on top-posting and not trimming the quoted material, especially when there's replies that have already been right-posted (aka inter-posted), I hate to say it, is just plain rude and self serving. Please take a moment and read the material listed in the two links previously provided. If you missed them, here they are again: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Ray -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
This was meant to be private, not via the list. I am not picking on Jerry alone, as many who are receiving these reminders will attest. In-line vs top posting, whatever. Neither is any excuse for the laziness of not trimming. -- Regards, Clif Moderator wrote: QUOTING NAG Please refrain from quoting all of a message when replying to one or more points in it. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Well, Ray has spoken, so I guess that makes it gospel. Top posting is wrong-posting, and only newbies who don't know any better do it. Speak for yourself, Ray - I, and many others, would rather not have to scroll down in each post to see the new material. I want to see it at the top, and scroll down if I need to refresh my memory as to the context. I am not a newby - I've been in the computer business for 26 years, and on the internet about as long as there was one (BBSs before that - top posting was quite common then, too). I do agree that the poster should trim out non-relevant material from prior posts, though. Regards, Charlie Noah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Without interposting, you have no idea where the reply fits into the thread. If you are a reader that typically reads through an entire thread, when it's essentially dead, and don't mind the occasional reply that's out of place because somebody has their clock out of sync, or the time zone set incorrectly, then that's fine for you. But top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else. The byte flow problem, is the one that directly affects Cliff and the digests. Unfortunately, 99.% of Top-Posters neglect to trim the quoted message to the relevant material. That wastes huge amounts of bandwidth. [snip] There really are no valid reasons to top-post, but there are plenty of valid reasons to inter-post and trim the quoted material. That's why it's been a flameable action on Usenet for over twenty years. Top-posting has only become more common in recent years because OE and a few other email/newsreader hybrids (that really don't do either well) make it tough to reply correctly and newbies are showing up everyday, not just in the first couple of weeks in September. Insisting on top-posting and not trimming the quoted material, especially when there's replies that have already been right-posted (aka inter-posted), I hate to say it, is just plain rude and self serving. Please take a moment and read the material listed in the two links previously provided. If you missed them, here they are again: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Ray -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
I have to say, I just loaded Outlook 2003, and sort EVERYTHING by conversation... I'm kinda sorry people are now making efforts to complying with 'netiquette', because 'top posts' are SO much easier to use in this venue - it is awesome to be able to run through the whole set of topics in the preview pane without having to so much as scroll I suspect we'll see Netiquette change over time for this reason - as posts become more 'real time' and interactive, it would make sense the rules would evolve as well... More and more we're *not* typically reading a response a week later or out of context - the world is changing! Evolve! ;-) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Except - the most important thing is COURTESY. To OTHER PEOPLE. I'm amazed I've stayed out of this as long as I have :-) The problem is that top-posting encourages people to not trim. That leads to, typically, maybe 90% of the average post being junk that's been seen before? Add to that, it is still probably normal that most people do not have flat fee net access (that's not true for the US I expect, but it's probably still true overall). How would you like to be downloading all that crap, at a cost of say 50c/min, where your 14,400 modem is running at half-speed due to the phone line being crap! LookOut is designed for people on a LAN running at gigglebit(sic) speeds. Think of those people who are still on old technology ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: 18 February 2004 13:47 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING I have to say, I just loaded Outlook 2003, and sort EVERYTHING by conversation... I'm kinda sorry people are now making efforts to complying with 'netiquette', because 'top posts' are SO much easier to use in this venue - it is awesome to be able to run through the whole set of topics in the preview pane without having to so much as scroll I suspect we'll see Netiquette change over time for this reason - as posts become more 'real time' and interactive, it would make sense the rules would evolve as well... More and more we're *not* typically reading a response a week later or out of context - the world is changing! Evolve! ;-) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Heh - I notice you top posted, and didn't trim. There must be a deeper meaning there... =:-o DW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Youngman Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:31 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING Except - the most important thing is COURTESY. To OTHER PEOPLE. I'm amazed I've stayed out of this as long as I have :-) The problem is that top-posting encourages people to not trim. That leads to, typically, maybe 90% of the average post being junk that's been seen before? snip -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Top Posting vs. Bottom Posting - didn't I see this in Gulliver's Travels with Big Endians and Little Endians? Where is our technical moxie boys and girls? With this group, I figured this would morph into a discussion on which of us could whip out a better e-mail client for parsing the responses to a different pane. Then we could fight about Right Posting vs. Left Posting. - Charles 'I deleted the entire previous response on this mail as a non-violent means of Civil Disobedience' Barouch -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Ray: I don't much agree with your analysis. Definitive statements such as ...top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else and ...there really are no valid reasons to top-post,... and ...Insisting on top-posting...is just plain rude and self serving. are incorrect and to base an analysis on such a flimsy foundation is...well, I think I'll say no more. Bill -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Susan, Curious, I find the reverse to be true. Since I usually read in threads, I find that having to scroll through the last part to get to the current part mildly annoying. The information flow problem is that messages, especially email, don't always arrive and sort threaded. This is problem is further compounded because somebody could reply today to a message that was deleted from your Inbox or expired from your news server days or even weeks ago. Without interposting, you have no idea where the reply fits into the thread. If you are a reader that typically reads through an entire thread, when it's essentially dead, and don't mind the occasional reply that's out of place because somebody has their clock out of sync, or the time zone set incorrectly, then that's fine for you. But top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else. The byte flow problem, is the one that directly affects Cliff and the digests. Unfortunately, 99.% of Top-Posters neglect to trim the quoted message to the relevant material. That wastes huge amounts of bandwidth. Another thing to remember here, is that Usenet and email are international, and that the US is pretty much the only place where almost everybody can get internet access without per-byte or per-minute charges. Please note I typed almost everybody -- There are still places in the US where there are no local access numbers and people have to pay per-minute line charges in order to access their unlimited internet accounts. There really are no valid reasons to top-post, but there are plenty of valid reasons to inter-post and trim the quoted material. That's why it's been a flameable action on Usenet for over twenty years. Top-posting has only become more common in recent years because OE and a few other email/newsreader hybrids (that really don't do either well) make it tough to reply correctly and newbies are showing up everyday, not just in the first couple of weeks in September. Insisting on top-posting and not trimming the quoted material, especially when there's replies that have already been right-posted (aka inter-posted), I hate to say it, is just plain rude and self serving. Please take a moment and read the material listed in the two links previously provided. If you missed them, here they are again: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Ray -- .=. | =-=-=-=-=-=-= Eagle Rock Information Systems Corp =-=-=-=-=-=-= | | -=-=-=-=-=-=- web and database business solutions -=-=-=-=-=-=- | | http://www.eriscorp.commailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Midwest Regional Office: 815-547-0662 (voice) 503-905-8153 (eFax)| .=. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
While I have seen the aversion to MS products on this list, I do like the way Outlook allows me to sort by subject then by received date/time. It is smart enough to handle the replies as part of a subject flow. Usually most of the threads are in blocks in the intray. I don't know if other products allow this. The sorting does go astray when someone changes the subject - so please restrain yourselves. My 2ยข Jef Lee IT Vision Level 3 Kirin Centre, 15 Ogilvie Road, APPLECROSS, WA 6153 Tel: (08) 9315 7000 Fax: (08) 9315 7088 P O Box 881, Canning Bridge, WA 6153 A.C.N. 068 914 867 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray DeGennaro at Eaglerock IS Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING Susan, Curious, I find the reverse to be true. Since I usually read in threads, I find that having to scroll through the last part to get to the current part mildly annoying. The information flow problem is that messages, especially email, don't always arrive and sort threaded. This is problem is further compounded because somebody could reply today to a message that was deleted from your Inbox or expired from your news server days or even weeks ago. Without interposting, you have no idea where the reply fits into the thread. If you are a reader that typically reads through an entire thread, when it's essentially dead, and don't mind the occasional reply that's out of place because somebody has their clock out of sync, or the time zone set incorrectly, then that's fine for you. But top-posting still makes things more difficult for just about everybody else. The byte flow problem, is the one that directly affects Cliff and the digests. Unfortunately, 99.% of Top-Posters neglect to trim the quoted message to the relevant material. That wastes huge amounts of bandwidth. Another thing to remember here, is that Usenet and email are international, and that the US is pretty much the only place where almost everybody can get internet access without per-byte or per-minute charges. Please note I typed almost everybody -- There are still places in the US where there are no local access numbers and people have to pay per-minute line charges in order to access their unlimited internet accounts. There really are no valid reasons to top-post, but there are plenty of valid reasons to inter-post and trim the quoted material. That's why it's been a flameable action on Usenet for over twenty years. Top-posting has only become more common in recent years because OE and a few other email/newsreader hybrids (that really don't do either well) make it tough to reply correctly and newbies are showing up everyday, not just in the first couple of weeks in September. Insisting on top-posting and not trimming the quoted material, especially when there's replies that have already been right-posted (aka inter-posted), I hate to say it, is just plain rude and self serving. Please take a moment and read the material listed in the two links previously provided. If you missed them, here they are again: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Ray -- .=. | =-=-=-=-=-=-= Eagle Rock Information Systems Corp =-=-=-=-=-=-= | | -=-=-=-=-=-=- web and database business solutions -=-=-=-=-=-=- | | http://www.eriscorp.commailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Midwest Regional Office: 815-547-0662 (voice) 503-905-8153 (eFax)| .=. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [ADMIN] The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
If you are replying to several points, do not top-post. This one really should be: Don't Top-Post, especially if the reply is already Right Posted. Here's two links: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting with some explanations of why Netiquette is the way is it. They're targeted for Usenet, but a mailing list suffers from all the standard Usenet problems, and has the additional disadvantage of not having Reference: headers to thread by. Hopefully folks will see the reasons behind interleaved replies and trimming posts. Otherwise Cliff might have to wield his moderator power more forcefully. Ray -- .=. | =-=-=-=-=-=-= Eagle Rock Information Systems Corp =-=-=-=-=-=-= | | -=-=-=-=-=-=- web and database business solutions -=-=-=-=-=-=- | | http://www.eriscorp.commailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Midwest Regional Office: 815-547-0662 (voice) 503-905-8153 (eFax)| .=. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
