On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:55:11AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 09/04/12 00:18, � wrote: > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:47:51 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 02:58:24PM +0000, Camaleón wrote: > > > >>>>> A bottom posting style does not mean "all the stuff goes to the > >>>>> bottom" > >>>> > >>>> Yes it does! That is what bottom posting is. > >>> > > Actually it can mean two things. When some people use the term they mean
A good definition, by defintion, can only mean one thing right? So you get the defintions clear, long before discussing the relative merits of each one. > "interleaved" - it's a debate that's been going for decades. Definitely not structured. The same old misunderstandings keep being repeated. AFAIR most of the heat comes from the merits of the styles. Generally, there are the top posting fanatics vs the interleaved fanatics. Remember, the term "interleaved" wasn't used then. So what happened, was that the "top posting" haters (TPH) argued with the "top posting" lovers (TPL). The TPH argued that the response(s) to a post should go directly underneath the post. Some TPL, to keep the peace and because of threats that if they persisted with being a TPL wouldn't get any help, started posting under the point they were addressing. This appeased most of the TPH. But because of the nature of email posts, some posts only addressed one issue, other posts addressed more that one issue various styles started to emerge. Some TPL posted underneath everything everytime, other TPL posted under the point they were addressing which very closely resembled the TPH style. Three styles started to emerge, 1) the strict TPL, who still exist today. 2) the TPL who plonked everything at the bottom 3) The TPL who tried to fit in and the TPH who were actually using interleaved style but didn't realise it. The style 1) people are the top posters and don't really warrant any more discussion. The style 2) people are the bottom posters who plonk everything at the bottom regardless. When there was only one point to respond to, it was impossible to tell whether it was a style 2) poster or a style 3) poster. The only way to tell the difference between a style 2) poster and a style 3) poster was when there was more than one point to respond to, the style 3) poster didn't plonk everything at the bottom. The style 2) people are the bottom posters and don't really warrant any more discussion. The style 3) people were a mixture of the TPH people and the TPL people and because of this, exhibited a mixture of styles within their own group. The TPH who tended to trim their posts and place the responses below the points they were responding to. The pseudo TPH (PTPH) (really TPL who were pretending to be TPH) who half heartedly trimmed their posts and half heartedly posted under the points they were responding to. Of course, time passes and people come and go, sign on to different mailing lists, newsgroups and what have you. Some of these mailing lists are predominantly TPH others TPL and occassional squabbles would break out until the three styles would sort themselves out. The PTPH because of their hybrid nature tend not to trim and hence can be wrongly classified as a style 2) or bottom poster when they are responding to only one point. The effect of this is a message which keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger, until either a strict TPH drastically trims (its in their nature) the post back to a more manageable size, or a PTPH does a half hearted trim, normally because it is getting a bit unweildly. To complicate matters even further, some posters vary between a style 2) and a style 3) poster depending on how they are feeling. Notice, I haven't talked about merits or motives of any style. Once you start discussing value/merits of a style then even more variables enter the picture. For example, calling style 1) posters lazy may sound plausible to a strict TBH but in reality a strict TBL may not be lazy at all. So it is no wonder squabbles break out on certain lists. On lists where the software is available for Windows and Unix/Linux you can get a large number of strict TPL versus strict TPH and squabbles flare up quite often, and style 2) tend to be lumped with style 3). Hope that clarifies my thoughts and reasoning. -- "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120408212947.GB2439@tal
