Re: top-posting 'condescending asshats' (to use Ryan Coleman's description of himself)

On 8/3/11 3:01 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: *ANY* situation where the elapsed time between messages is longer than the recipient's ability to retain the 'frame of reference' (i.e., the previous message) in memory, it _is_ harder for the recipient of the message to follow top-posted content than int

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Doug Lee wrote: > > I don't either, but I will provide a different data point: Blind > listers, myself included, must generally read through posts > sequentially, as it is usually trickier to skip reliably through > quotes to the new material when using s

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:04PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote: > > > > > > Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have > > > been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-traine

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

On Thursday 19 February 2009 05:06:15 GESBBB wrote: > 4) The insertion of legally unenforceable disclaimers, etc. is another big > waste of space. And not always under the control of sender, through the creative use of outgoing mailfilters. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they s

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

5) The use of HTML mail in a mail forum is absurd; however, it is commonly done (GMail). this is a problem - as GMail and similar things itself. 6) One of my 'Pet Peeves": Morons who change a thread's subject rather than start a new one. was me sometimes by accident, but i do care now not do

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

> From: Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au [snip]   > Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have > been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting, > including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and repeated trailers etc, > after years of your (almost

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote: > > > > Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have > > been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting, > > including tail-quoting all sorts irrelev

Re: Top Posting Mania [was Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow]

> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote: Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting, including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and repeated trailers etc, after years of your (almost too- :) c

Re: top posting (off-topic)

> On November 25, 2007 at 09:49PM Giorgos Keramidas wrote: [ snip ] > The footnote was easy to understand after a quick Wikipedia search: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting > > Quoting the text (so list members don't have to actually repeat the > search): > > Some mainta

Re: top posting (off-topic)

Hi, Brent Jones wrote: Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a comment that comes up very regularly; "please don't top post..." at least, you make me understand what this means. Yes, it is stupid to avoid top posting as they save a lot of time as long as it is sti

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On 2007-11-25 19:01, Chad Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:56:15PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > I think it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem: we don't really know for > > sure whether TOFU[1] posting spurred much of the rise of illiteracy or > > the increase of

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:56:15PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > > I think it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem: we don't really know for > sure whether TOFU[1] posting spurred much of the rise of illiteracy or > the increase of relative illiteracy on the Internet led to an increase in > TOFU post

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:22:50AM +1300, Brent Jones wrote: I find that top-posting really makes it difficult to follow the flow of a discussion. I especially find it difficult when someone engages in TOFU [1] posting, because when I try to check context there's a gawdawful lengthy blob of stuff

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:48:38AM -0800, David Benfell wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:51 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > > > > We have adults who can't be bothered to tell the difference > > between lose and loose in writing. Wonderful things encouraged by people > > justifying their lazy

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:52:06PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > > It should be easy in mailing-lists to block mails of top-posters. It would also probably be prone to "false positive" errors. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] McCloctnick the Lucid: "The first rule of ma

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On 2007-11-23 21:58, David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> Understood from that perspective, perhaps you can see why people >> might dislike top posting. > > Many here (and elsewhere) will not reply to a top-poster. I am one of these people. I

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: Understood from that perspective, perhaps you can see why people might dislike top posting. When asking a favor of another, a wise man would not offend his potential helper. Many here (and elsewhere) will not reply to a top- poster. You wan

Re: top posting (off-topic)

David Benfell wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:51 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: We have adults who can't be bothered to tell the difference between lose and loose in writing. Wonderful things encouraged by people justifying their lazy writing styles. This might be slightly unfair. A larg

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:51 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > > We have adults who can't be bothered to tell the difference > between lose and loose in writing. Wonderful things encouraged by people > justifying their lazy writing styles. > This might be slightly unfair. A large proportion of

Re: top posting (off-topic)

Robert Huff wrote: Bart Silverstrim writes: You're right in that top posting is a savings in effort. I disagree. It's not a savings, it's a transfer - moves the work from the poster to the reader. Okay, I'll qualify my statement by saying it is a time and effort saver for the

Re: top posting (off-topic)

Bart Silverstrim writes: > You're right in that top posting is a savings in effort. I disagree. It's not a savings, it's a transfer - moves the work from the poster to the reader. Make that "readers", because /every single reader/ has been imposed on to expend the effort. Looke

Re: top posting (off-topic)

Brent Jones wrote: I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread enough times that I like to cut to the chase and read the new input without having to scroll down, sometimes navigating an endless nesting of >>> For me, reading through top posted replies saves time an

Re: top posting (off-topic)

El día Friday, November 23, 2007 a las 08:05:59AM -0500, Bill Moran escribió: > There are three reasons _not_ to top-post and to post inline, trimming > your response intelligently: > > 1) Top-posting does not scale up to large, complex emails. It produces >incomprehensible responses when th

Re: top posting (off-topic)

"Brent Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread > enough times that I like to cut to the chase and read the new input > without having to scroll down, sometimes navigating an endless nesting > of >>> For me, reading through top

Re: top posting (off-topic)

"Brent Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread http://www.asciiartfarts.com/20011201.html HTH, HAND -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ h

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:22:50 +1300 "Brent Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a > comment that comes up very regularly; "please don't top post..." > > I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular > thread enoug

Re: top posting (off-topic)

(Moved to freebsd-chat where it belongs.) On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Brent Jones wrote: I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread enough times that I like to cut to the chase and read the new input without having to scroll down, sometimes navigating an endless

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:22:50 +1300, Brent Jones wrote: > Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a > comment that comes up very regularly; "please don't top post..." > > I for one prefer top posting This has been hashed out on so many technically-oriented lists, that it

Re: top posting (off-topic)

Understood from that perspective, perhaps you can see why people might dislike top posting. Rather, your entire response is at the top, separating itself from the context to which it refers. Furthermore, it can be very confusing to understand precisely what you're referring to, because your

Re: top posting (off-topic)

On Thursday 22 November 2007 21:22:50 Brent Jones wrote: > Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a > comment that comes up very regularly; "please don't top post..." > > I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread > enough times that I like t

Re: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC])

On Saturday 28 May 2005 09:28, the author Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC contributed to the dialogue on Re: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC]): >someone wrote: >>>> Think about the effect of long paragraphs and then having to move >>>> backwards an

Re: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC])

someone wrote: Think about the effect of long paragraphs and then having to move backwards and forwards and you read one paragraph downwards and then are foprced to move upwards to read the subsequent posting Tha means scanning and rescanning. Top posting is neither sensible or practica

Re: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC])

On Saturday 28 May 2005 06:42, the author [EMAIL PROTECTED] contributed to the dialogue on RE: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC]): > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vizion >Sent: Friday, May 27, 2

Re: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC])

> > > hay enough of this BS about top posting. You have to wake up to the > fact there are many people who belong to this list who are not UNIX > bigots. No top posting has been the rule for the list for a long time - since the beginning as far as I know.The rule has nothing to do with UN

RE: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC])

hay enough of this BS about top posting. You have to wake up to the fact there are many people who belong to this list who are not UNIX bigots. Us win/outlook people have just as much right to post as the rest of you. And more to the point who the hell pointed this new comer of just 10 days (vizi

Re: Top posting solution

Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Tuesday, 10 August 2004 at 14:58:02 -0700, Kevin Stevens wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while indenting with a quote character. Not tr

Re: Top posting solution

On Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:24:24 PM Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: |>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:45:13 -0400 |>From: Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |>Subject: Re: Top posting solution |>To: FreeBSD Questions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |>Message-ID: &l

Re: Top posting solution

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:45:58 -0400, JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard > liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the > email messages on this list. > > The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to

Re: Top posting solution

(This message is also located at the bottom of the message, and also in-line) [top post] Oh boy, am I tired of this discussion that in some kind of nature law must pop up every three or four month. | > Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as a | > whole, rathe

Re: Top posting solution

On Aug 10, 2004, at 6:25 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as a whole, rather than to the content. What reference to a whole? Whole what? This message came in while I was writing my previous message in this thread. It shows *exactly* the

Re: Top posting solution

Chris wrote: Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 05:45:58 PM -0400 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the email messages on this list. The fact of life is

RE: Top posting solution

a fix :-( >> >> Giorgos-- it would be reasonable to assume that JJB was using the >> tool he speaks of, only that would not be correct; oe-quotefix >> doesn't work with Outlook itself: >> >> ] From: JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> ] Subject: RE: To

Re: Top posting solution

JB was using the tool he > speaks of, only that would not be correct; oe-quotefix doesn't work with > Outlook itself: > > ] From: JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] Subject: RE: Top posting solution > ] Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsof

Re: Top posting solution

ation of Outlook regarding quoting and wrapping the text is clearly visible... it's not a fix :-( Giorgos-- it would be reasonable to assume that JJB was using the tool he speaks of, only that would not be correct; oe-quotefix doesn't work with Outlook itself: ] From: JJB <[EMAIL P

RE: Top posting solution

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JJB > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG > Subject: Top posting solution > > To > all you Unix hard liners, Please instead of > complaining to the top posters, it would be

RE: Top posting solution

CRAP. HERE WE GO AGAIN. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JJB > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG > Subject: Top posting solution > > > Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix > h

Re: Top posting solution

On 2004-08-10 18:14, JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Stevens wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: > > > >> The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix > >> email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email > while > >> indenting with a quote character. >

Re: Top posting solution

On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:58 PM, Kevin Stevens wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while indenting with a quote character. Not true. Pine doesn't, for example. It begins a

Re: Top posting solution

On Aug 10, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: It would actually be much nicer if people would return to literacy standards that existed, not only in the computer world, before Microsoft came along. I've long given up actively trying to help people write literate mail. I just ignore thei

RE: Top posting solution

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: > So your a hard core purest on the other side of the coin. You know absolutely nothing about my position on this subject other than what you infer from the formatting of the posts I've made. The fact that I reject specious argument from incorrect facts is irrelev

Re: Top posting solution

Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 05:45:58 PM -0400 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the email messages on this list. The fact of life is all the Unix

Re: Top posting solution

Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as a whole, rather than to the content. This message came in while I was writing my previous message in this thread. It shows *exactly* the points I was referring to. Yes, the reply is posted at the bottom, but the quoted text is mut

Re: Top posting solution

Hi Paul, --On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:13 PM -0500 Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But I'm trying to think why someone would be posting to a freebsd list from a Windows box Because some of us are working in part on building / servicing a predominantly Windows network during the day

Re: Top posting solution

On Tuesday, 10 August 2004 at 14:58:02 -0700, Kevin Stevens wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: > >> The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix >> email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while >> indenting with a quote character. > > Not true. Pine d

Re: Top posting solution

--On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 05:45:58 PM -0400 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the email messages on this list. The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere

RE: Top posting solution

Kevin Stevens wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: > >> The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix >> email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while >> indenting with a quote character. > > Not true. Pine doesn't, for example. It begins a reply with t

Re: Top posting solution

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote: > The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix > email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while > indenting with a quote character. Not true. Pine doesn't, for example. It begins a reply with the cursor at the very top of t

Re: Top posting

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:13:49PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > [Format *not* recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > > RFC 1855 violation. > > On Saturday, 20 March 2004 at 20:53:18 +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote: > > So far I only see argument agains top-posting. >

Re: Top posting

Rob wrote: As for MUA... My ex-employer (anybody want an IT support/installation engineer in the UK?) decided to move everybody and all our clients to MS Outlook and Exchange. Because "that's what people want". Gotta love PHB's! And that's another topic But not much of one. KDK

Re: Top posting

> > > >When you are posting to a list, there is a time lag and a distance that > >needs to be overcome. > >... > > I'm more of a lurker on the questions list, although I chime in when I see > something I can help with. I've been reading this through and I don't > think anybody has pointed

Re: Top posting

At 09:09 22/03/2004 -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: When you are posting to a list, there is a time lag and a distance that needs to be overcome. It is similar, but not quite the same as a face to face conversation. Retaining relevant material and interspersing responses comes as close to a con

Re: Top posting

On 3/21/2004 10:26 PM Rob M wrote: Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1. I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it was a big deal and every enviro

Re: Top posting

At 2004-03-22T02:34:36Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm missing something here. Top posting, interleaved posting and bottom > posting are not a function of the MUA, they're a function of the human > making a conscious decision how to write a message. What do *you* mean?

Re: Top posting

> > Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I > have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1. > I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it > was a big deal and every environment I have been in has

Re: Top posting

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:40:25 +1030 Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh. That's human nature. To quote: > >What is actually happening, I am afraid, is that we all tell each >other and ourselves that software engineering techniques should be >improved considerably, be

Re: Top posting

On 2004-03-21T23:26:47-0700, Rob M wrote: > Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I > have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1. Welcome! > I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it > was a

Re: Top posting

On Mar 21, 2004, at 7:35 PM, Lucas Holt wrote: Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. i have to scroll all day. They should, in my opinion, delete extraneous stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the

Re: Top posting

On Mar 22, 2004, at 00:13, Tony Crockford wrote: At 07:54 on Monday, 22 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500 "Denny Jodeit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The charter states no top posting. I made sure to re-re

Re: Top posting

At 07:54 on Monday, 22 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500 "Denny Jodeit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The charter states no top posting. I made sure to re-read the list charter when this thread started. I c

Re: Top posting

On Mar 21, 2004, at 23:31, Rob M wrote: On Sunday 21 March 2004 11:50 pm, Denny Jodeit wrote: It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The charter states no top posting. I don't think it could be stated or explained any simpler. Reference, please? The FreeBSD Handbook

Re: Top posting

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500 "Denny Jodeit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The > charter states no top posting. I made sure to re-read the list charter when this thread started. I couldn't find a single mention of top posting. Th

Re: Top posting

On Sunday 21 March 2004 11:50 pm, Denny Jodeit wrote: > It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The charter > states no top posting. I don't think it could be stated or explained any > simpler. And this is why I did not just blurt it all out at the top of my message. I am

Re: Top posting

On Monday 22 March 2004 12:50 am, Denny Jodeit wrote: > > Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, > > I have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows > > since > > 3.1. > > > I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never know

Re: Top posting

> Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I > have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1. > I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it > was a big deal and every environment I have been in has top

Re: Top posting

Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1. I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it was a big deal and every environment I have been in has top posted.

Re: Top posting

On Sunday 21 March 2004 08:46 pm, you wrote: > On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 21:01, Eric F Crist wrote: > > Also, it's nice to see some people who don't post a whole lot speak up > > about something. To all those, welcome! > > That's rather the problem. People who don't know much about unix are > perfect

Re: Top posting

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:40:25PM +1030 or thereabouts, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 22:54:56 -0500, Michael W. Oliver wrote: > > On 2004-03-21T19:33:58-0600, Gary wrote: > >> --On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> So is there so

Re: Top posting

On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 22:54:56 -0500, Michael W. Oliver wrote: > On 2004-03-21T19:33:58-0600, Gary wrote: >> Hi JJB, >> >> --On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom >>> post? >> >> Outlook

Re: Top posting

On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 22:41:12 -0500, Jud wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:04:36 +1030, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:27:57 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: >>> At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [snip

Re: Top posting

On 2004-03-21T19:33:58-0600, Gary wrote: > Hi JJB, > > --On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom > >post? > > Outlook fix > > OE fix

Re: Top posting

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:04:36 +1030, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:27:57 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > > I think the main difference between top- and interleaved-

Re: Top posting

On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:27:57 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> DO Unix mail clients have some option to config them to top post? > >> No. > > Kmail, for one, offers that as an option. I started doing that at work

Re: Top posting

At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> DO Unix mail clients have some option to config them to top post? > No. Kmail, for one, offers that as an option. I started doing that at work after my boss explained that interleaved-trimmed posting is difficult to r

Re: Top posting

On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:44:12 -0500, Scott Ballantyne wrote: > Top posting is irritating. So is scrolling through 20Mb of unedited text > to get to a one line response, which is often "Yes, I've seen this too." > Spelling flames are irritating too. And the most irritating of all is > reading

Re: Top posting

Top posting is irritating. So is scrolling through 20Mb of unedited text to get to a one line response, which is often "Yes, I've seen this too." Spelling flames are irritating too. And the most irritating of all is reading messages on a mailing list which deal only with issues of netiquette. What

RE: Top posting

Hi JJB, --On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom post? Outlook fix OE fix -- Gary ___

Re: Top posting

On 03/21/04 08:17 PM, Shaun T. Erickson sat at the `puter and typed: > > ... both top and bottom ... > > All this talk of "top" and "bottom" is making me blush and breathe heavy, > LOL (j/k). :-) ROFL. Thank you dearly. That one comment has just made this whole thread worthwhile! > Perhaps thi

Re: Top posting

[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] Long/short syndrome. On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:09:17 -0500, JJB wrote: > So unix mail clients bottom post by design and MS/outlook tops > posts by design. No, that's not a question of design: it's the way you use them. >

RE: Top posting

> ... both top and bottom ... All this talk of "top" and "bottom" is making me blush and breathe heavy, LOL (j/k). :-) Perhaps this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten, that we can let it Rest In Peace, and move on? :-) -ste ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] m

RE: Top posting

So unix mail clients bottom post by design and MS/outlook tops posts by design. So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom post? DO Unix mail clients have some option to config them to top post? SO here we are right back at the starting point. The 2 different groups have to

Re: Top posting

uidzero wrote: What's wrong with the convention we have? I'll answer this message a third time in the style you propose. Tell me if it's easier to read. This one just gets too long after a thread of 5 or more. I can relate to the others but, I just don't read any of the thread to start with if

Re: Top posting

Lucas Holt wrote: Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. i have to scroll all day. The other irritant is people who actually post in the middle of messages. That breaks the "FLOW" as well. After someone

Re: Top posting

"Bottom posting", where you leave the entire previous message, is only marginally better than top posting. If the text is important, you should be reading it. If it isn't, the sender shouldn't have included it. On the contrary, it shows you what the discussion is about. In this example, I'm answ

Re: Top posting

On Monday, 22 March 2004 at 11:13:37 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 19:35:48 -0500, Lucas Holt wrote: >> Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like >> when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. > > "Bottom posting", where you

Re: Top posting

The following message is the second in a series of three, intended to show why bottom-posting (where a reply is completely separate from the original message) is bad. See the first message (Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for a version that I consider understandable. On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 19:

Re: Top posting

The following message is the second in a series of three, intended to show why top-posting is bad. See the previous message (Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for a version that I consider understandable. "Bottom posting", where you leave the entire previous message, is only marginally better than to

Re: Top posting

On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 19:35:48 -0500, Lucas Holt wrote: > Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like > when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. "Bottom posting", where you leave the entire previous message, is only marginally better than top postin

Re: Top posting

Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. i have to scroll all day. The other irritant is people who actually post in the middle of messages. That breaks the "FLOW" as well. After someone replies top or bot

Re: Top posting

[Format *not* recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] RFC 1855 violation. On Saturday, 20 March 2004 at 20:53:18 +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote: > So far I only see argument agains top-posting. Why should the number of arguments count? It's their validity. But I think you're

Re: Top posting

So far I only see argument agains top-posting. If it makes sense for you, perhaps you could give a couple of arguments wy you think its a good idee. On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:35:06PM -0500, Al Johnson wrote: > I'm with you... Top-posting makes the most sense for me. I doubt it. > I was born to

  1   2   >