On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +0000, Steve Mynott wrote: > Niklas Nordebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +0000, Steve Mynott wrote: > > > FLAME ON > > paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so > > I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you" > That wasn't actually the intention. I will top quote when I think it > makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case > when you are writing more than you are quoting.
Do you read bottom-up, then? if not, why bother quoting? did you actually read any of the link I posted? > A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote > in order to get the new material. I read a _lot_ of email and such Yes. However, there shouldn't really be *ENOUGH TO SCROLL PAST* which was my point in the first place. If you don't trim the quoting I still have to scroll past all of the stuff you've quoted, just to see if there's anything new at the bottom. Bzzzzzzzzt. You lose. > scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes. It also raises > visability of your words. I am well aware that its against How? > USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just > geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really. You obviously didn't read that link. Go and read it. You may understand why I feel this way. The examples are good and clear. > Isn't the Perl way "There is More Than One Way to Do It?" Yes. However, we're now talking about english not perl. Bzzzzzt. You lose. Again. > Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding > on a point to point basis (as I am doing now). So I use both quoting > styles. If you end up top-posting, then why bother quoting? > > Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely > > after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because > > they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't > > understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use > > fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client > > for hippy programmers. > Sorry you lost me here. I can't understand whether you are being > ironic or not and so your meaning is lost. Don't worry if it's over your head. You're obviously one of the kind of people that's being insulted. :-) > I care more about the content people post and how easy it is to read > than the way they quote it. Bzzzzzzt. You lose. YET AGAIN. The entire point of sensible quoting is *TO MAKE IT EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND*. You're really doing well here. > > People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy > > quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean > > that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp > > of logic will understand. > I think the solution is client-side (filtering) rather than > server-side. No - no filtering, just a few seconds thought when composing the article. > Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time. So WTF are you doing it? > If you hate "broken quoting" so much why don't you write a Perl script > to "fix" it to the way you like and put all your mail through it? Because then you need to understand language. Well volunteered, since you think it would be so easy. > Problem Over. Not at all. MBM (angry=630476ms). -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/
