Re #1: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual,
section x.y.z.
That is what snip is for :)
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine
included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
everyone avoids top posting.
Top posting makes it hard to read.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the snip claim, it has several problems:
1.It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
4.Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with
a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
pointlessly noisy.
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
too doctrinaire about it.
A
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). A ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500 Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. That is what snip is for :) I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better, everyone avoids top posting. Top posting makes it hard to read. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXsIXATb/zqfZUUQRAni5AJ4n4UHJVrMyPmv55gAsBzk8IlSB/ACgienh y+lxmDq+wIlAxJCD3J5v4eU= =YbQ1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Dec 11, 2007 10:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. This would be true if we were writing to each other with letters of friendly correspondence. We generally are not, but instead are discussing technical issues. By chopping up the original post into bite sized pieces and interleaving our answers, we give context to our responses. Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. I do not believe anyone is arguing for including the entire previous post. In fact, most netiquette guides quite clearly state you should summarize the previous reponse instead of including it as one giant blob. On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. The conventions exist for a reason, not unto themselves. It is far easier to have a technical conversation with interleaved quoting than with top or bottom posting. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. It is not made any better by having No: see the manual, section x.y.z at the top of 36 quoted lines. I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I agree. There are times it's just fine with me, like when someone is posting a Thanks! message. But when someone is asking a technical question, and someone has gone to the trouble to interleave their answers so that they have context, and then someone posts back, at the very top, well what about if change a to b? And you have no idea what he means without reading the whole thing, because there's no context. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. Indeed, and that's why another one of the critical commandments is Thou shalt trim thy quotations. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500 Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. That is what snip is for :) I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better, everyone avoids top posting. Top posting makes it hard to read. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments; I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes. I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.) As for the snip claim, it has several problems: 1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby draw the thread in a completely new direction. 2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers. 3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious slurs being heaped on them by others. 4. Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it. I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and pointlessly noisy. I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being too doctrinaire about it. A ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tuesday 11. December 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. At that point I just move on to the next thread. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. At that point I just move on to the next thread. The funniest is when that second top post response is What's a top post? Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re #3: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the snip claim, it has several problems:
1.It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
snip
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
too doctrinaire about it.
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re #2: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual,
section x.y.z.
That is what snip is for :)
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine
included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
everyone avoids top posting.
Top posting makes it hard to read.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the snip claim, it has several problems:
1.It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
4.Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with
a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
pointlessly noisy.
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
too doctrinaire about it.
A
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal Scott). It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look all equally stubborn. a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances to get a reply d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient to educate newcomers I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the rule. I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or pollute the list with pro top posting arguments. This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list. We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP. It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the Internet get trapped in this kind of thread. *Especially because we could use their time much better.* Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB. [1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__; most frequently. BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information* Technology are strict relatives -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal Scott). It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look all equally stubborn. a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances to get a reply d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient to educate newcomers I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the rule. I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or pollute the list with pro top posting arguments. This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list. We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP. It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the Internet get trapped in this kind of thread. *Especially because we could use their time much better.* Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB. [1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__; most frequently. BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information* Technology are strict relatives -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
