standing
for those who may either not know the rules, or may actually be confused
because top posting works for them and inline or bottom posting doesn't. I'm
stubborn in that I am almost always standing up for the minority that others
feel they should write off.
snip
originally used my words
Hal Vaughan wrote:
Actually, they are not as objective as one would think.
Statement with no backup, gotta love it.
Putting a few sentences together in reverse order is not a comparison to
top posting.
Yes, it is because that is exactly what top posting does.
There are many reasons
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 23:25 -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
--snip--
I program randomly. Err. That's random as opposed to sequentially; not
as in I bang random keys on my keyboard and hope for the best. ;-)
/me envisions an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of
typewriters sitting in
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 08:36:38PM +0100, Peter J Ross wrote:
Tom Waits.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:22:27PM -0500, John Carline wrote:
What a crock of snobbish BS!
snobbish
adj : befitting or characteristic of those who inclined to social
exclusiveness and who
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:14:50PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 8:40 am, you wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
It's
preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole
thread to figure out what solved some random printing problem.
But, in fact, most people
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:26:47AM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
/me envisions an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of
typewriters sitting in a building in Redmond with an M$ logo on the
front... :)
Well, infinite is probably a little on the high side, but...
--
David
On Sunday June 12 2005 10:10 am, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Unlike vi v. emacs or KDE v. Gnome, there's actually an RFC about
this one. It's a dead issue. If you don't conform, people will be
less liekly to reply to you.
Really? an RFC? Which one, and where might I find it?
On 10/6/2005, at 1:55, David Jardine wrote:
be getting out of hand :)
us a lecture on top posting sometime soon? It seems to
Isn't some authoritative voice on the list going to give
I gave up lecturing people about top quoting. Non Technical People,
and those are the most in most
On Thu 9 June 2005 22:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
You've been around too many Outlook Express and Outlook users, then.
Those are the only two clients that encourage top posting by default
and make you strain to post properly, instead of the other way
around.
Sadly, Novell GroupWise encourages
David P James wrote:
On Thu 9 June 2005 22:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
The only time when top-posting is equal (not superior - equal) to
interspersed is under the following strict set of circumstances:
Even under those circumstances it isn't because most people don't
naturally do answer
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:51:51 -0400, you wrote:
%On 6/10/05, John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Would you write programs backwards? I would hate to write a
backwards
% compiler to compile your backwards programs.
%
%Doesn't everyone write their programs backwards? Don't you _start_
at the
Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better.
Sorry, but I'm not too slow to remember the substance of 95% of the
Ben wrote:
Well, I find that most C programs nowadays are written backwards :
main() on top and functions below. Having learned C from KR, that's
backwards for me.
But the point is : I put up with it. No whining and no expectations
that everyone will want to follow my preferences.
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:03:52 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: Ben Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
The point is : if you think that the posting has info that is
important enough, you will make the effort to read. . . .
Oh? A writer who doesn't make his writing easy to read won't be.
What's more
or not. In other words, we can get over it, or just let it by.
Top posting is ok if you also trim your quotes.
I've started reading posts space space ... 10mins later ... space,
WTF nothing, oh bloody top poster PgUp PgUp ... 10mins later ...
PgUp just to read a one line thanks, FFS. If they'd
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:51:22PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
[..]
two means the number just prior to five (three, Sire!); oh, yes,
prior to three.
too means also or overly much, as in Kent's being too picky. He's
ugly, too.
to is used in just about all other cases, as in Are you going to the
that the body of the message should allways reiterate what is set
in the subject. That is simply good writing form.
Those really are two different use cases, but on a mailinglist it
is handy if everybody has the same style of posting (top or
bottom). Also, many newbies on a mailinglist
Chris Bannister wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:51:22PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
[..]
No offense intended to anyone. This email is the property of the owner
and all unauthorized uses are strictly forbidden without express written
umm ... any unauthorised use is strictly forbidden ...
unauthorised use is strictly forbidden ... :-)
Must be a full moon.
It was a joke.
Oh wait! Your posting was a correction of my English. How stupid of me.
Sorry (hangs his head in humiliation).
--
Kent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03.39, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 2:45 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use
bottom-posting with html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called.
Only in inadequate mailers. Mutt, gnus, kmail and likely most
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Jin Juku wrote:
Answer: Because it makes conversations difficult to follow.
I guess I really am a newbie, because I have no idea what this
top-posting business is supposed to mean ... we're not supposed to
send new, clean messages to the list
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 10:06:11PM +0100, Graham Smith wrote:
Lech Karol Paw?aszek wrote:
On Thursday 09 of June 2005 22:13, Mike Ward wrote:
[...]
Afterall, I honestly never had heard of 'top-posting' before until
now, but just this gentle reminder means that at least one occasional
user
Tom Waits.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:22:27PM -0500, John Carline wrote:
What a crock of snobbish BS!
snobbish
adj : befitting or characteristic of those who inclined to social
exclusiveness and who rebuff the advances of people
considered inferior [syn:
that this doesn't apply solely to this mailing list by a long
shot, everybody has other things to do than read their email on a
continual basis[1].
So, post at the bottom and trim out the stuff that is not necessary
to understanding your reply.
Is that really so much better than top-posting? Not even you
On Saturday June 11 2005 12:07 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03.39, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 2:45 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use
bottom-posting with html mail or rtf text or whatever it is
called
development.
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using
bottom up development, you never solve the problem.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people
with
you that the body of the message should allways reiterate what is set
in the subject. That is simply good writing form.
Those really are two different use cases, but on a mailinglist it
is handy if everybody has the same style of posting (top or
bottom). Also, many newbies on a mailinglist
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting#Why_bottom-posting_also_isn.27t_the_answer
On Saturday June 11 2005 5:02 pm, Jim Hall wrote:
BTW, we solved the problem of accidently sending replies to
individuals by using a Reply-To: in the header with the lists
address. Not exactly a pure solution, but it
(Yes, I'm top-posting here, because it seems to be the most appropriate
for this type of message. I usually bottom-post/interpolate.)
Jim, your message is a perfect example of why people need to trim quoted
text if you bottom-post. You have included 74 lines of quoted text, and
almost *none
On 6/11/05, Jim Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, we solved the problem of accidently sending replies to individuals
by using a Reply-To: in the header with the lists address. Not exactly
a pure solution, but it works.
Did you open this can o' worms on purpose, or do you just not know
that
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:51:18 -0400
John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I do actually write my programs backwards .. from how it
will look to the enduser.
That's top down development vs. bottom up development.
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using
Paul Johnson wrote:
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting#Why_bottom-posting_also_isn.27t_the_answer
On Saturday June 11 2005 5:02 pm, Jim Hall wrote:
BTW, we solved the problem of accidently sending replies to
individuals by using a Reply-To: in the header with the lists
address. Not exactly a pure
Hubert Chan wrote:
(Yes, I'm top-posting here, because it seems to be the most appropriate
for this type of message. I usually bottom-post/interpolate.)
Jim, your message is a perfect example of why people need to trim quoted
text if you bottom-post. You have included 74 lines of quoted text
Paul Johnson wrote:
Modern mail readers include
reply-to-list as a basic part of standard functionality these days
(No, OE and Lotus Notes are not modern).
Neither is Thunderbird.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5
Alex Malinovich wrote:
Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
who haven't followed an entire thread.
True. But that's the point: making it easier for those who *are*
following a thread ahould be the priority.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
When will this off-topic thread die? Going through the list, most of
what I receive is about top posting vs. bottom posting. Who cares
already. It was interesting for the first 100 posts but now it is old.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Caleb Walker wrote:
When will this off-topic thread die? Going through the list, most of
what I receive is about top posting vs. bottom posting. Who cares
already. It was interesting for the first 100 posts but now it is old.
What I can't believe is that it only began 15hrs ago
On Friday 10 June 2005 01:51 am, Caleb Walker wrote:
When will this off-topic thread die? Going through the list, most of
what I receive is about top posting vs. bottom posting. Who cares
already.
That was my point from the beginning, but it seems some people are VERY
passionate
to
benefit their fellow man. Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
who haven't followed an entire thread. Much in the same way that users
of proprietary software are too lazy to find, support, or write a free
alternative that would benefit all of mankind.
[snip[
That's the most self-serving
I'm not saying I'm right and I often bottom post to not annoy
people but I have to try and convince you to switch.
Who died and left you to rewrite the English language?
No one. I ask you the same question though?
As far as I can see bottom posting has as many advantages and drawbacks
Is it really necessary to get so exercised about top- vs bottom-posting?
On 6/10/05, Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:10:35 -0400, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
Do you see why it's nice to have the context provided immediately? With
a bottom-posted
On 6/9/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in reverse order is
to
read the one line added to the 200 I've already read.
And that's why trimming is also a recommended practice.
The lack of trimming by posters to this list actually seems more out
of hand than the top posting.
Of the emails here that I skip without bothering to read, the
majority are those which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
(I really did try to stay out of this...)
phil
Mark said:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree.
such a great feature of gmail - quoted
text is hidden away until you want to see it. I can't even tell the
difference between bottom posting and top posting most of the time. :D
I'm an incurable bottom-poster; q.v.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:20:11PM +0200, Mark wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:32:04AM -0400, Phil Dyer wrote:
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
I think the point you agree with is both point.
-- hendrik
P.S. What is the difference between a
On Friday June 10 2005 12:12 am, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Alex Malinovich wrote:
Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
who haven't followed an entire thread.
True. But that's the point: making it easier for those who *are*
following a thread ahould be the priority.
No, making
On Friday June 10 2005 12:56 am, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Why it's such a big deal to them, I'll never know, but some people
don't seem able to accept that different people do things
differently.
It's already been explained to you by a large number of people
already. Maybe if you read for
On Friday June 10 2005 8:02 am, Hendrik Boom wrote:
It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
gnus fixes broken quoting for you on reply. Make top posters
Phil Dyer wrote:
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
(I really did try to stay out of this...)
phil
I get no points at all as it is not worth trying to figure out what the
point was.
That,
software. They are too lazy expend a bit of effort
to benefit their fellow man. Bottom-posting makes reading easier for
those who haven't followed an entire thread. Much in the same way that
users of proprietary software are too lazy to find, support, or write a
free alternative that would
On Friday 10 June 2005 10:42 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 12:12 am, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Alex Malinovich wrote:
Bottom-posting makes reading easier for those
who haven't followed an entire thread.
True. But that's the point: making it easier for those who
On Friday 10 June 2005 10:45 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 12:56 am, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Why it's such a big deal to them, I'll never know, but some people
don't seem able to accept that different people do things
differently.
It's already been explained to you by a large
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
:0
* ^Subject: .*Top Posting
/dev/null
plonk!
- --
/phil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key: http://www.dyermaker.org/gpgkey
iD8DBQFCqazoGbd/rBLcaFwRApEUAKCBS0dHR+PtjqAOovs4jZKOCq8o1wCgkhpr
has options to skip past blocks of
quoted content and to hide quoted content entirely (of course this
requires that the responder use the standard quoting technique of
interleaved/bottom posting and indenting quoted material with greater
than characters).
--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.ukhttp
Paul Johnson wrote:
It's
preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole
thread to figure out what solved some random printing problem.
But, in fact, most people use web-based archives in which that's exactly
how they access the messages after the original discussion.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:40:26AM -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
It's preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole thread
to
figure out what solved some random printing problem.
But, in fact, most people use web-based archives in which
. The immediate previous bit will
probably remind you, and if not, the bit before that, etc. It's much
more useful for that sort of discussion than bottom-posting. And I'm
not speaking as a Windows-brainwashed suit -- I've been using Unix tools
since 1984 and email since 1975.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:29:01PM +0200, Lech Karol Paw?aszek wrote:
On Thursday 09 of June 2005 23:06, Graham Smith wrote:
[...]
I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but
if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually
reading
On Friday 10 June 2005 12:49 pm, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:29:01PM +0200, Lech Karol Paw?aszek wrote:
snip
I've mused in the past about having a thread-analyser that puts back all
the deleted parts of the message (by following the thread back, of course)
and putting
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:12:37 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've been around too many Outlook Express and Outlook users, then.
Those are the only two clients that encourage top posting by default
and make you strain to post properly, instead of the other way
around.
My
not on any lists where top-posting is the norm, but when I
correspond with other people on a personal basis, where the thread has
no branches, and so it's easy to keep track of the conversation, I tend
to write like a regular letter -- the pen and paper kind. (Why bother
keeping the context at all when
On 10/06/05 16:02nbsp;Hendrik Boom wrote:
It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
The Mozilla folks may well be persuaded to implement this for
Here's my take:
One of the *BSD newsgroups I subscribed to used to be pretty nice. Not too much
traffic, helpful people.
The last time I went online to ask a question (after some years of absence),
and followed up on that question, some @[EMAIL PROTECTED] started whining about
my top posting
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:02:28AM -0700, Ben Chong wrote:
So top posting or bottom posting? It's like pornography: if u don't
like it, don't read it. But please don't impose your morality on the
rest of us.
Except that it is not morality. It is practicality in this case. If
you want
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:57:36PM +0100, Adam Hardy wrote:
So, what is the difference between a duck, Hendrik? It better be good. ;)
Adam
One of the joys of age. You can recycle jokes from fifty years ago,
and you find new people to tell them to!
This one has a tradidional answer:
One
On Friday 10 June 2005 12:30 pm, Hubert Chan wrote:
snip
I don't believe I was. I was just trying to give reasons for why I
think that top-posting (in a mailing list context) is not a good thing
to do.
I haven't been keeping track of who said what in which post, so I don't know
if I
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 09:13:05AM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
People process information differently. Apparently, few find it more
efficient to process it in reverse order. That being so, I'll
continue to bottom post in this forum, if only to accommodate the LCD.
Just out of curiosity:
might say, in one line, 'That does the job.'
While I can perhaps understand posting a That does the job message for
archival purposes. I really don't understand why anyone would send a
post containing thank you, I agree, 'no, yes, Etc. to a list of
thousands. These one-liners contribute nothing
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:01 pm, Thomas Stivers wrote:
snip
While I can perhaps understand posting a That does the job message for
archival purposes. I really don't understand why anyone would send a
post containing thank you, I agree, 'no, yes, Etc. to a list of
thousands. These one-liners
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
--
Caleb Walker
Top Gun Drywall Supply, Inc.
559-276-5161
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
Least Common Denominator.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you attempt to fix
Carl Fink wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
Least Common Denominator.
I thought it was Last Chick Drunk.
--Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Exactly. Ignore top post messages if they irritate you. Like this one. :-)
Same approach for people (top posters) who have difficulty strolling down
multiple pages to extract relevant info.
The point is : if you think that the posting has info that is important enough,
you will make the effort
Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
Outlook does it this way not to
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 17:17 -0400, Joe Potter wrote:
--snip--
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better. Gates is a cancer, and the after life will be warm
in his case if
you
need reminding, you can scroll down. The immediate previous bit will
probably remind you, and if not, the bit before that, etc. It's much
more useful for that sort of discussion than bottom-posting. And I'm
not speaking as a Windows-brainwashed suit -- I've been using Unix
tools since
. The immediate previous bit will
probably remind you, and if not, the bit before that, etc. It's much
more useful for that sort of discussion than bottom-posting. And I'm
not speaking as a Windows-brainwashed suit -- I've been using Unix
tools since 1984 and email since 1975.
More importantly, I think
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:45:43PM +0200, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use bottom-posting with
html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called. And while plain text is
better in most situations, I have to admit there are situations where
formatted
is : if you think that the posting has info that is important
enough, you will make the effort to read.
All over?
If not, you should be doing something else more productive.
Why even reply to threads? Maybe we could change the subject on each post too
Ben
-Original Message-
I like
that tech folks are so linear -
it's only in tech forums that I encounter this insistence on bottom
posting - at least where I work, tech people are among the smartest I
know, and so I would expect more lateral, reverse, circular, etc., and
less vertical information processing. But I also code
On Friday June 10 2005 8:40 am, you wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
It's
preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole
thread to figure out what solved some random printing problem.
But, in fact, most people use web-based archives in which that's
exactly how they access the
On 6/10/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 8:40 am, you wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
It's
preserved for posterity and not everybody wants to read a whole
thread to figure out what solved some random printing problem.
But, in fact, most people use web-based
backwards programs.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:56:04 -0400, Michael Z Daryabeygi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
[...]
No one leaves the entire thread intact as one reply follows another.
So I think the argument of context is bogus.
Long threads with multiple branches (like this one). You reach the end
of one branch, and
Jan Leewe Behrendt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2005 21:18 schrieb Jacob S:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:34:53 -0400
Hal Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:55 pm, David Jardine wrote:
be getting out of hand :)
us a lecture on top posting sometime
, and if not, the bit before that, etc.
It's much more useful for that sort of discussion than
bottom-posting. And I'm not speaking as a Windows-brainwashed suit
-- I've been using Unix tools since 1984 and email since 1975.
Bottom posting also isn't the answer, its just as bad as top posting
for being a waste
On Friday June 10 2005 2:45 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use
bottom-posting with html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called.
Only in inadequate mailers. Mutt, gnus, kmail and likely most other
mailers get it right. If your mailer can't
Learn to format your posts properly. Paragraphs start with an empty
line and should be written in conversational order like in normal
written English. See standard RFC1855.
On Friday June 10 2005 2:56 pm, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
I think that one of my personal strengths is my ability to
On Friday June 10 2005 9:49 am, Hendrik Boom wrote:
But excessive trimming, so that it becomes hard to figure out
what went where, is a problem.
But that's not a problem, diff does it all the time...
--
Paul Johnson
Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday June 10 2005 9:06 am, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
My Sylpheed-claws puts the cursor at the top of replies. I think
it's so I may enjoy trimming out the irrelevant before I post below
the points to which I refer.
Yes, that's why most mailers put the cursor at the top. You're
expected to
On 6/10/05, John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you write programs backwards? I would hate to write a backwards
compiler to compile your backwards programs.
Doesn't everyone write their programs backwards? Don't you _start_ at the end?
I guess it depends on what you mean by backwards,
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
However, given the that majority
of people invloved in the actual *discussion* are reading it a mail or
news reader, it is better to cater to that group. The fact these
discussion are archived on the web is really a side effect.
-
The majority of people involved
Hal Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 09 June 2005 05:26 pm, Alex Malinovich wrote:
So a top-poster is concerned about him or herself not doing extra work.
A bottom-poster is concerned with improving the quality of reading for
others.
That's the most self-serving, self-centered,
On 6/10/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Learn to format your posts properly. Paragraphs start with an empty
line and should be written in conversational order like in normal
written English. See standard RFC1855.
Standard, huh? It's called Netiquette _Guidelines_. And I quote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:09:12PM -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
However, given the that majority
of people invloved in the actual *discussion* are reading it a mail or
news reader, it is better to cater to that group. The fact these
discussion are archived on
Joe Potter wrote:
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better.
Sorry, but I'm not too slow to remember the substance of 95% of the
conversations I have with my
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:51:51 -0400, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 6/10/05, John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you write programs backwards? I would hate to write a
backwards compiler to compile your backwards programs.
Doesn't everyone write their programs backwards?
901 - 1000 of 1302 matches
Mail list logo
