Re: mutt tip (was ... Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting)

2009/3/28 Chris Jones > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:10AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote: > > I was asking one of the top-posting advocates to elaborate on "archaic > mail readers" .. written in the 1980s .. I believe he wrote.. > > I would assume he is not using one himself .. but then who knows..

Re: mutt tip (was ... Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting)

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:10AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:08:35PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > > What mailer are you referring to? I use mutt and it threads messages > > reliably, flagging malformed mails that it adds to a thread when it > You can see what mailer

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:26AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:11:38PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > > Now then.. I have two bottom posters .. and one top poster.. > > OK. > > > What do I do? > > Snip out the irrelevant bits. Do you use vim as your editor? If so you >

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:30:15PM +, Bob Cox wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:06:11 +1300, Chris Bannister > (mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: > > [...] > > It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a > > better method, but that was shrugged off as being t

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:11:38PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > Now then.. I have two bottom posters .. and one top poster.. OK. > What do I do? Snip out the irrelevant bits. Do you use vim as your editor? If so you can put a number before the 'dd' command: 40dd will delete 40 lines. -- Chris.

mutt tip (was ... Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting)

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:08:35PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > What mailer are you referring to? I use mutt and it threads messages > reliably, flagging malformed mails that it adds to a thread when it You can see what mailer he is using if you put in your .muttrc: - # What headers are displa

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:43:28AM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Chris Bannister wrote: > >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > Then, of course, it follows that not posting at all is ideal. I *should* have said: Without triming bottom pos

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:04:54PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median > line and insert your comments is the center of it, splitting

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel > wrote: > > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > > Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > Mail 2: A: Top-posting. > > Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Tue,24.Mar.09, 13:30:15, Bob Cox wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:06:11 +1300, Chris Bannister > (mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: > > [...] > > It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a > > better method, but that was shrugged off as being too confusing.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:06:11 +1300, Chris Bannister (mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: [...] > It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a > better method, but that was shrugged off as being too confusing. :o > So in that situation I was happier[2] seeing a sil

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-24 07:06, Chris Bannister wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent to

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has > spent too much time using Windows. Or who re

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:32:04AM EDT, Jesus Arocho wrote: > Not all cultures have the same idea of manners. Another example, all > cultures > have the similar ideas about stealing, but not so about art. Somethings just > have to be, others we can pick. > > On Sunday 22 March 2009 13:18:44 R

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:16:12PM EDT, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In <143f0f6c0903230837k4d6bc8a5r55fe985e82993...@mail.gmail.com>, Christofer > C. Bell wrote: [..] > Thank goodness my threaded mail reader never shows 4 messages at once. > (Alright, alright, it *can* but it doesn't do so

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:37:21AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > > > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > > > Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > > Mail 2: A: Top-posting. > > > Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:57:09AM EDT, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > Chris Jones wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > > [..] > > > >> I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the > >> discussion progresses, of course), especially if a th

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

In <143f0f6c0903230837k4d6bc8a5r55fe985e82993...@mail.gmail.com>, Christofer C. Bell wrote: >What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > >> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? >Top-posting. > >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? >> Top-posting. >Why is top-posting such a bad thin

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > Mail 2: A: Top-posting. > > Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally rea

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Chris Jones wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > [..] > >> I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the >> discussion progresses, of course), especially if a thread has run for >> a while. > > Most "business" mail runs something like t

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson > wrote: > > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: ... > > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sunday 22 March 2009 23:07:29 Dave Patterson wrote: >* Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [2009-03-22 20:34:50 -0500]: >> That's hyperbole, at the very least. The original Pentium was released on >> March 22, 1993. 3 1/2" disks had been available for a while. While the >> first GB disk wouldn't be seen u

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Not all cultures have the same idea of manners. Another example, all cultures have the similar ideas about stealing, but not so about art. Somethings just have to be, others we can pick. On Sunday 22 March 2009 13:18:44 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2009-03-22 12:27, Jesus Arocho wrote: > > Hee, Hee

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

* Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [2009-03-22 20:34:50 -0500]: > That's hyperbole, at the very least. The original Pentium was released on > March 22, 1993. 3 1/2" disks had been available for a while. While the > first GB disk wouldn't be seen until 1995, 100MB drives were available. Not in '87.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mar 22, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2009-03-22 19:52, Dave Patterson wrote: * Ron Johnson [2009-03-22 16:06:06 -0500]: Except that Our arguments are Right, and Theirs are Eeeevil. Here we go. I can imagine the hearings now: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a top poster

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

* Ron Johnson [2009-03-22 21:20:30 -0500]: > You must have missed the Editor Wars... > > "Why do we have to hide from the police, Daddy?" > "Because we use vi, son. They use emacs." > > "Escape Meta Alt Control Shift" > > "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping" > > "EMACS Makes Any Computer S

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 19:52, Dave Patterson wrote: * Ron Johnson [2009-03-22 16:06:06 -0500]: Except that Our arguments are Right, and Theirs are Eeeevil. Here we go. I can imagine the hearings now: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a top poster?" You must have missed the Editor Wars... "W

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:27:13PM -0400, Jesus Arocho wrote: > Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by > associating them with use of Windows? > > The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table, > burp/not burp after a meal, etc, true

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:56:35AM +1000, Adrian Levi wrote: > 2009/3/23 Christofer C. Bell : > [snip] > > I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally > > unnecessary. > > -- > > Chris > > Now imagine you are CC'd in on the conversation with no warning at > Mail 4,

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote: [..] > I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the > discussion progresses, of course), especially if a thread has run for > a while. Most "business" mail runs something like this: -> hey, Dee.. got my fax?

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

In <20090323010320.gb7...@gecko.davescrunch.org>, Dave Patterson wrote: >* Christofer C. Bell [2009-03-22 16:24:52 -0500]: >> I remember the days before 1994 and the Great AOL Floodgates opening... > >A 286 accelerator card in an 8086 IBM with a 20 Mg hard drive and 5 1/4 >floppy drive. 56k mode

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

* Christofer C. Bell [2009-03-22 16:24:52 -0500]: > I remember the days before 1994 and the Great AOL Floodgates opening... A 286 accelerator card in an 8086 IBM with a 20 Mg hard drive and 5 1/4 floppy drive. 56k modem. Hotrod machine for the day. I don't miss it. -- Dave signature.asc

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

* Ron Johnson [2009-03-22 16:06:06 -0500]: > > Except that Our arguments are Right, and Theirs are Eeeevil. > Here we go. I can imagine the hearings now: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a top poster?" -- Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

2009/3/23 Christofer C. Bell : > This isn't true.  Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade > ago. ;-)  Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of > which, incidentally, support HTML email).  Because *you* are a curmudgeon > doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > Or... only technically-astute people should be allowed on the Internet. > That way, it doesn't degenerate into the Intarweb of tubes and spam. > I remember the days before 1994 and the Great AOL Floodgates opening... -- Chris

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 14:32, Wendell Cochran wrote: In non-tech lists, top-posting suggests that the writer is (a) unaware that Westerners read from top down, or (b) unable to edit plain text. Or both. Debian-users ought not wish to appear so inconsiderate & incompetent. Or... only technically-astute

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 14:28, Celejar wrote: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:27:13 -0400 Jesus Arocho wrote: Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by associating them with use of Windows? The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table, burp/not burp af

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:04:54PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median ROTF > line and insert your comments is the center of it, spli

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

In non-tech lists, top-posting suggests that the writer is (a) unaware that Westerners read from top down, or (b) unable to edit plain text. Or both. Debian-users ought not wish to appear so inconsiderate & incompetent. Wendell Cochran West Seattle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-r

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:27:13 -0400 Jesus Arocho wrote: > Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by > associating them with use of Windows? > > The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table, > burp/not burp after a meal, etc, It is not;

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 11:52, Christofer C. Bell wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent too

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:52:54 -0500 "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: ... > This isn't true. Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade > ago. ;-) Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of > which, incidentally, support HTML email). Because *you* are a curmudgeon

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Chris Bannister wrote: > Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median line and insert your comments is the center of it, splitting a word if necessary. Bob Holtzman writes: > Then, of course, it follo

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:52:54 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: > >> > >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > > > The only person who can say that with a strai

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sunday 22 March 2009 17:18:44 Ron Johnson wrote: > > The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table, > > burp/not burp after a meal, etc, > > Hmmm.  Manners or No Manners; it's an easy choice. No - the poster has a valid point. Both the cases he cites are cases where c

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

wrote: Bell C. Christofer EDT, 12:52:54PM at 2009 22, Mar Sun, On Chris -- > unnecessary. > I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally > post, I don't need to see it again. > unnecessary text (the quoted material). I just read it in the previous > annoying as it f

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Chris Bannister wrote: Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. Then, of course, it follows that not posting at all is ideal. -- Bob Holtzman Light a man's fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest o

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 12:27, Jesus Arocho wrote: Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by associating them with use of Windows? The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table, burp/not burp after a meal, etc, Hmmm. Manners or No Manners; it's

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Hee, Hee; are you trying to humiliate people into using bottom posting by associating them with use of Windows? The debate of top/bottom posting is much alike elbows on/off the table, burp/not burp after a meal, etc, > > > > Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > >

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: > >> >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. >> > > The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent > too much time using Windows. > > > A: B

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:09:29AM -0700, Angus Auld wrote: [snipped **H E A P S** of unnecessary text] Proof reading might also be a good idea, as is evidenced by my mistakenly saying that top-posting is the established method here. ;) Bottom-postin

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:09:29AM -0700, Angus Auld wrote: [snipped **H E A P S** of unnecessary text] > Proof reading might also be a good idea, as is evidenced by my mistakenly > saying that top-posting is the established method here. ;) > Bottom-posting of course is the prevailing method on d

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:32:20 +0100 mouss wrote: ... > now, when I respond to specific points in the quoted message, I bottom > post. unfortunately, many people are not used to this, and find it hard > to continue the discussion consistently: they often don't understand > levels of nesting using

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Comments inline ;-p Daniel Burrows a écrit : > My experience has also been that attempting to bottom-post in a > corporate environment confuses people because they can't find your > reply. When people know the conventions, bottom-posting is a lot > clearer, but if it just confuses them, there's

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Sander Marechal a écrit : > [snip] > > Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment. There > is no mailinglist or archive to see the entire discussion there. Suppose > you are discussing something with a coworker over e-mail. With top > posting every reply carries the entire t

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

--- On Fri, 3/13/09, Angus Auld wrote: > From: Angus Auld > Subject: Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting > To: "debian-user" > Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 10:55 AM > --- On Thu, 3/12/09, Bob Cox > wrote: > > > From: Bob Cox > > Subject: Re: T

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Bob Cox wrote: > From: Bob Cox > Subject: Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 12:55 PM > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 00:12:15 -0500, Kumar Appaiah > (a.ku...@alumni.iitm.ac.in) wrote: >

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:00:28AM +0100, Sander Marechal wrote: > Alex Samad wrote: > > isn't that a reason for top posting? > > No, because with bottom posting you can quote just a little bit of an > e-mail and put your response directly below it. This is a big boon with > larger e-mails because

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Daniel Burrows wrote: My experience has also been that attempting to bottom-post in a corporate environment confuses people because they can't find your reply. That's when the sender needs to trim out what doesn't need to be there. It's not necessary to quote the entire previous e-mail.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 00:12:15 -0500, Kumar Appaiah (a.ku...@alumni.iitm.ac.in) wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:04:29PM -0700, Ken Teague wrote: > > There's nothing more painful when reading e-mail than to start from the > > very bottom, read the message, then begin to read each reply up

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Alex Samad wrote: > isn't that a reason for top posting? No, because with bottom posting you can quote just a little bit of an e-mail and put your response directly below it. This is a big boon with larger e-mails because you can respond to multiple statements or questions in turn. Of course, whe

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:04:29PM -0700, Ken Teague wrote: > There's nothing more painful when reading e-mail than to start from the > very bottom, read the message, then begin to read each reply upwards. It > becomes really bad when some replies are more than a page long because > you now hav

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Sander Marechal wrote: Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment. There is no mailinglist or archive to see the entire discussion there. Suppose you are discussing something with a coworker over e-mail. With top posting every reply carries the entire thread. Want to involv

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

> isn't that a reason for top posting, if you have already read the > previous emails, don't you want to just get to the new information with > out having to read the stuff you just read in the previous email ? Well if the bottom-poster just leaves the cited text without any sort of cleaning, i.e.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:18:52PM +0100, Sander Marechal wrote: > Nuno Magalhães wrote: [snip] > > For a real mailinglist (such as this) there is no such benefit when top > posting. Everyone already has all the previous messages because they are > subscribed here, and in the rare case you want

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Steven Demetrius wrote: > For all you posters discussing Top posting vs Bottom posting and taking > other threads off topic here is a thread for you. On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Stephen D. Barnes wrote: > Alan B. Pearce wrote: >>> On Mon, D

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Jens Van Broeckhoven wrote: Sander Marechal wrote: Nuno Magalhães wrote: I think most people top post in corporate enviroments 'cos they just click and type and don't really care about proper use of email or computers in general. It's just the thing to send messages. Actually, top post

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Sander Marechal wrote: Nuno Magalhães wrote: I think most people top post in corporate enviroments 'cos they just click and type and don't really care about proper use of email or computers in general. It's just the thing to send messages. Actually, top posting makes some sense in a co

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:31:39AM +, Nuno Magalhães was heard to say: > I think most people top post in corporate enviroments 'cos they just > click and type and don't really care about proper use of email or > computers in general. It's just the thing to send messages. Ever seen > IT Crew?

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:18:52PM +0100, Sander Marechal wrote: Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment. There Not really. is no mailinglist or archive to see the entire discussion there. Suppose you are discussing something with a coworker over e-mail. With top pos

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Nuno Magalhães wrote: > I think most people top post in corporate enviroments 'cos they just > click and type and don't really care about proper use of email or > computers in general. It's just the thing to send messages. Actually, top posting makes some sense in a corporate environment. There is

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 07:23, randall wrote: > personally the most e-mails i receive and sent are in a "corporate" > environment and everybody uses top posting there, i clearly see it has > benefits since it is used more as a "notification" to have the latest one > (and probably most relevant) o

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Steven Demetrius wrote: For all you posters discussing Top posting vs Bottom posting and taking other threads off topic here is a thread for you. First my opinion, Since this mailing list historically has been Bottom posting then we stick with it. good point. personally the most e-mails i

Top posting vs Bottom posting

For all you posters discussing Top posting vs Bottom posting and taking other threads off topic here is a thread for you. First my opinion, Since this mailing list historically has been Bottom posting then we stick with it. Using both top and bottom posting in the mailing list will lead to