begin quoting Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade as of Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 03:24:41AM -0700: > On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Michael J McCafferty wrote: > >That's an easy argument... question then answer. But I am running > >larger windows than most (my mail client is maximized on one of the > >two 24" Wide-screens at 1920x1200, and I'd spend my day scrolling if > >everyone did it "Question then Answer" / Bottom Post. > > Well, sure, if nobody ever trimmed. > > Those of us who don't like top-posted replies also don't like people > who refuse to trim the quoted messages down to the relevant parts.
Another problem is that most of those who top-post aren't very good writers, despite thinking otherwise of themselves. Recall that article on the F-shaped pattern of reading? I notice I do that, a LOT... and with top-postings, I start with no context, so the first bit I read makes no sense, so I skip down, and still no sense, and now I have to scroll to get any context.... and by then, why bother? I'm moving on to the next article. The size of one's window (and what a lame DSW that is) is almost irrelevent; if it's large enough to engage the F-shaped scan, it's large enough to demonstrate the futility of top-posting. Basically, if you write well enough so as to be able to top-post, you wouldn't need to quote ANYTHING, and where you quote would be moot. > I'd have included more of your message, but you basically go on a > bitch-fest about those of us who appreciate others who actually put > some more time and thought into their work, and I saw no need to > include any of that for context. And your writing is good enough to make this fly with only the smallest of introductions. Given another five minutes, I have no doubt you could have eliminated that quote entirely, other than for demonstration purposes. Hm. No, I tell a lie. Unless you did take that five minutes. > Honestly, I had a much more verbose, point-by-point reply that I was > working on, when I realized that nobody here simply gives a shit, > anyway. I mean, if you're bitching about having to scroll a mail > message on your 24" full-screen mail client, think of how those of us > working on laptops must feel! Not only do you write an email where I > had to scroll just to read _your_ text, but then there was another > "page" worth of quoted message I needed to scroll through at the end! <expression type="deadpan"> Your time is not valuable. </expression> > Why was it even there at all? You didn't really respond directly to > anything there, aside from trying to bitch-slap Tracy for stating his > understanding of mail etiquette, and then commiserate with the > original poster. You could have done that without quoting any of the > messages at all, yet you insisted on including that completely > redundant bit of information. The really stupid thing is that I was the one who made the original complaint. Trying (and failing miserably, I might add) to bitch-slap Tracy was like kicking the cat 'cuz the dog pissed on your flowers.... The sad thing is that I totally missed the reply. I saw that it was Yet Another Top-Posted message, and I skipped it entirely. Didn't even read any of it. Too much to read, not enough time to read it, one's got to have some rules somewhere. > Okay, so this is going to be a bit more verbose than I thought. I > guess you touched a nerve. Heh. [chop] > Well, fine, then. Sod off. I just can't bring myself to delete this line. All words of one syllable. Strunk & White would be proud. [snip] Beautiful. Dude, I am *so* buying you a beer (or other beverage of your choice, hopefully involving quality tequila) the next time I get a chance to. -- Good writing should always result in someone buying someone else a drink. Stewart "Long words" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
