Anthony wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary
>> client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is,
>> at its core, laziness.
>>
> Every great software application has, at its core, laziness.
Indeed! Or perhaps that might be
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six
>> copies of the
>> foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
>> content of the reply to the previous message.
>>
>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > This post below, I've pretty much ignored
> > because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
>
> Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
>
Correct. It
MZMcBride wrote:
This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of
the
foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
content of the reply to the previous message.
I've pretty much be ignoring this thread, and mark everything as read on
On 31 March 2010 14:43, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> This post below, I've pretty much ignored
>> because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
>
> Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
I am still uncertain wheth
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> This post below, I've pretty much ignored
> because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com
__
Was that supposed to be an example of a terrible use of inline posting? If
so, ha, great job, I couldn't even figure out what was written by you and
what was written by Mr. McBride.
BTW, this is supposed to be an example of a good use of top posting.
But in the end, you're just not going to forc
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >>Hello --
>
> >>Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand
> how
> to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread.
Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person
to person
yup, especially John Doe!
On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling
>> mailing lists
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:5
Hi,
I prefer to write emails following rules similar to what MZMcBride
pointed at the beginning of this topic, mainly because it is how I
like to read other people emails - tho unfortunately a few people do
so. I use gmail, because I like its features and I don't care about
privacy issues, but I b
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary
> client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is,
> at
> its core, laziness.
>
Every great software application has, at its core, laziness.
__
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Svip wrote:
> A: Because it ruins the way people read.
> Q: Why is topposting bad?
>
Is bottom posting any better?
> Is bottom posting any better?
No, not really.
>> Is bottom posting any better?
> No, not really.
Why not?
>>> Is bottom posting any better?
>>
Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Hello --
>>
>> Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how
>> to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread...
>>
>
> What possible good did you see coming from this thread? You
> /k
Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Hello --
>>
>> Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how
>> to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread...
>>
>
> What possible good did you see coming from this thread? You
> /kne
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Svip wrote:
> Indeed, posting on a mailinglist is all about respect for the other
> clients. And boosting your own client as superior and thus not
> needing to bother with etiquette seems a bit... ignorant or arrogant.
> I can understand people not being aware of
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Hello --
>
> Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how
> to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread...
>
What possible good did you see coming from this thread? You
/knew/ it would produce a bun
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dan Rosenthal
wrote:
> ..
> Nobody forces you to read their posts.
Hmm. I remember that argument being used to assert that there was no
problem with foundation-l. [[meta:Improving Foundation-l]]
--
John
___
foundati
On 31 March 2010 01:53, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Assuming that other people care about ones own form of mailing choice is
> crap also, as far as this list is concerned. Let people do as they choose.
> Nobody forces you to read their posts.
Hm, I am starting to get swayed by this 'top posting' princ
Assuming that other people care about ones own form of mailing choice is
crap also, as far as this list is concerned. Let people do as they choose.
Nobody forces you to read their posts.
On Mar 30, 2010 7:45 PM, wrote:
Top posting is not what *creates* the crap.
Copying the entire email is a sta
On 31 March 2010 01:45, wrote:
> Personally I don't want to scroll down through a 200 word email just to see
> "me too" at the very bottom.
The opposite of 'top-posting' is 'bottom-posting', which is actually
equally bad in my mind, as it creates that exact problem.
There are two decent methods
Top posting is not what *creates* the crap.
Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable)
and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some
which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either!
Personally I don't want to scroll down thro
On 31/03/10 00:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 March 2010 00:15, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap",
>> however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose
>> responses while I am offline.
>>
> Get Gmail Offline
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 March 2010 00:15, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap",
>> however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose
>> responses while I am offline.
>
> Get Gmail Offl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, John Doe wrote:
> I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling
> mailing lists
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent m
On 31 March 2010 00:15, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap",
> however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose
> responses while I am offline.
Get Gmail Offline, then! (You turn it on somewhere in preferences.) It
uses Go
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client.
No. Writing an inline reply and cutting out the cruft is supported by every
client, everywhere, always. You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary
client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in or
On 31 March 2010 01:12, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use
>> Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It
>> hides all the copies of ol
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use
> Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It
> hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage
> it
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use
> Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It
> hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage
> it
I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling
mailing lists
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use
> Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order.
Hoi,
The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use
Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It
hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage
it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
When you argue tha
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how
to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. This makes for
far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the
foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to fi
32 matches
Mail list logo
