[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Steve> No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least
> Steve> two distinct subcases of relevant material.
>
> Steve> * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of
> Steve> the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by
> Steve> line base. The "traditional" way.
>
> Steve> * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which
> Steve> may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new
> Steve> text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of
> Steve> the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make
> Steve> people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through
> Steve> scrolling can.
>
> This is where URLs come in. It's either relevant, or it should be NOT
> INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. Put it in an attachment if you must. But
> putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid.
Inline ASCII is to be prefered to URLs for several reasons.
You are assuming the person is reading the mail online with web access
whereas they could be offline on the train. Also URLs break and go
404. Also in the context of a debate someone could also
retrospectively change the URL content.
Attachments too can be problematic in many programs (eg. the problems
with the PGP/MIME signing by mutt with many programs).
Plain inline ASCII isn't exciting but it certainly isn't "stupid" but
reliable and actually likely to work.
> And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does*
> become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around
> and cutting and pasting. But if you'd just done it right in the first
> place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not
> *difficult*.
I think you are really missing the point here.
I am not saying top quoting is always good (after all I am not doing it
now) but that it has occasional uses.
You on the otherhand are saying it's always bad, by definition,
regardless of context, which just seems to me dogmatic and unsupported
by anything you or anyone else has said on this thread.
> How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the "page down"
> key. Really. And/or trim the quoted material. Really.
When I top quote I _do_ trim the quoted material as I did in the
original post if you care to go back and read it.
Trimming isn't the issue and is unrelated to where you quote.
I have seen plenty of people bottom quote and not trim.
> You are being rude to me, as the reader. And I will interpret that as
> you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with
> me. If you want to make that impression, go right ahead. But don't
> expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because
> apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy
> communication.
But I think top quoting (in rare circumstances) does aid clean easy
communication. This has been the basis of my whole argument.
Don't think of top quoting as such but more as an occasional extended
footnote if that makes it easier for you to accept.
--
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
humans hardly ever learn from the experience of others. they learn - when
they do, which isn't often - on their own, the hard way. -- robert heinlein
