Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
I looked at it and most of the advice seemed reasonably sensible,
although not particularly original. I still think the well known
"Emily Postnews" and RFC 1855 Netiquette guides, which predate it by a
number of years, are better.
It is rather narrow in concentrating on quoting style exclusively.
Also using a single line "I agree" example seems rather foolish since
many people think these sort of contentless oneliners are to be
discouraged.
I am sorry but a specification of email style isn't the same thing as
a specification of TCP/IP or whatever as many programmers seem to
believe. One is objectively right or wrong and the other mere
subjective opinion.
And there is a certain arrogance underlying this document and similar
ones and it is "the way we believe emails to be written is definitive
and absolutely right with no possible variation possible" and an
associated lack of tolerance of the views of others.
Although, ironically, this document also contains a line you would
have done well to study yourself before sending an abusive off-list
email to me.
"Be polite. Calling someone an idiot for top-posting may help let off
steam, but it's unlikely to help fix the problem - indeed the opposite
might be more likely."
True words indeed.
> > 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.
How can you write an email in which there is nothing to scroll past
when you don't know how many lines there are displayed in the email
client? Answer: You don't and "top quoting" wins in this situation.
I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why
their mail clients use "top quoting". Did your friends do usability
studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this
and they prefered top posting.
> 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.
I understand exactly why you feel this way. You are blinkered in
feeling you are right and everyone should agree with your particular
way of writing emails.
You actually believe that people will change the way they write in
order with your own views. I believe you are mistaken and you will
learn this with time
> Yes. However, we're now talking about english not perl. Bzzzzzt. You lose.
> Again.
s/english/English
OK I admit spelling/grammer corrections are lame but not as bad as
your imaginary virtual buzzer which belongs in a document defining
unacceptable arguing techniques.
> > 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?
To add some minimal context to my post.
> No - no filtering, just a few seconds thought when composing the
> article.
Yes you are right (no irony) but your chances of enforcing your narrow
set of views on the email reading public are zero in the absence of a
"quoting police" to confiscate the computers of offenders who commit
the evil of top quoting.
Users are dumb so deal with it.
> > Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time.
>
> So WTF are you doing it?
Because I like it. What's your excuse?
> > 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.
I don't think you need a Perl script that understands the English
language to do this. You could just use the '>' and if there is
unquoted text above them move it to the bottom where you can scroll
down to it with the keystrokes you enjoy so much and be happy!
--
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
chemistry is applied theology.
-- augustus stanley owsley iii
