Thanks Scott. I know what top posting is...I just don't know why you
think I did. I hit reply, type my message and go forth. Didn't think
it needed to be any harder than that.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Scott
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> Thanks Scott. I know what top posting is...I just don't know why you
> think I did. I hit reply, type my message and go forth. Didn't think
> it needed to be any harder than that.
I did not think anything -- This is my 1st message to thi
You was not specifically YOU...rather the list.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Curtis
> LaMasters wrote:
>> Thanks Scott. I know what top posting is...I just
- "Curtis LaMasters" wrote:
> Thanks Scott. I know what top posting is...I just don't know why you
> think I did. I hit reply, type my message and go forth. Didn't
> think
> it needed to be any harder than that.
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
> http://www.builtnetwor
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> Thanks Scott. I know what top posting is...I just don't know why you
> think I did. I hit reply, type my message and go forth. Didn't think
> it needed to be any harder than that.
It can be a lot harder than that. It's effectively illus
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> Thanks Scott. I know what top posting is...I just don't know why you
> think I did. I hit reply, type my message and go forth. Didn't think
> it needed to be any harder than that.
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
>
And I think the point is being missed. WHY WAS MY MESSAGE VIEWED AS
TOP POSTED. Ok, I committed my internet crime of YELLING in caps for
the day. In Gmail, is there a proper way to not top post?
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Jul 29, 200
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM, wrote:
> Unfortunately Gmail top posts by default. So expecting bottom posting to be
> and to remain the default behavior may be an exercise in futility. proper
> ettiquite or not, some people just bang off replies and figure everything is
> a-ok. This being a r
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> And I think the point is being missed. WHY WAS MY MESSAGE VIEWED AS
> TOP POSTED. Ok, I committed my internet crime of YELLING in caps for
> the day. In Gmail, is there a proper way to not top post?
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.cu
This is top posting apparently.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Curtis LaMasters
> wrote:
>>
>> And I think the point is being missed. WHY WAS MY MESSAGE VIEWED AS
>>
And this is bottom posting. Correct?
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.c
Yes.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> This is top posting apparently.
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
> http://www.builtnetworks.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Curtis LaMasters
>> wr
To which one?
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, David Burgess wrote:
> Yes.
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Curtis
> LaMasters wrote:
>> This is top posting apparently.
>>
>> Curtis LaMasters
>> http://www.curti
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> And this is bottom posting. Correct?
Well, I don't think it's top-posting or bottom-posting if you delete
all prior content.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr.
The current is an example of top-posting, in response to your
top-post. I don't think you've bottom-posted in this thread yet.
db
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> To which one?
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
> http://www.builtnetworks.com
>
>
>
>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM, David Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Curtis
> LaMasters wrote:
>> And this is bottom posting. Correct?
>
> Well, I don't think it's top-posting or bottom-posting if you delete
> all prior content.
>
> ---
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM, David Burgess wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Curtis
>> LaMasters wrote:
>>> And this is bottom posting. Correct?
>>
>> Well, I don't think it's top-posting or bottom-posting if you delete
>> a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> How about now? Bottom posting?
Bingo.
Ha ha. Now Scott's saying no and I'm saying yes. In my view, you
bottom-posted, although you could refine it further by trimming the
quoted text to which you're replying. Not sure if that's Scott's
Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
that I'm using Gmail or that by definition, threading in email is
broken by design. I would have imagined that the Spamassassin mailing
list would have eaten all Gmail users alive if Gmail were the issue.
Curtis LaMasters
http:/
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
> that I'm using Gmail or that by definition, threading in email is
> broken by design. I would have imagined that the Spamassassin mailing
> list would have eaten all
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
> that I'm using Gmail or that by definition, threading in email is
> broken by design. I would have imagined that the Spamassassin mailing
> list would have eaten all Gm
> HItting reply resulted in the above
>
> A proper bottom post then looks like this:
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis
> LaMasters wrote:
>> Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
>> that I'm using Gmail or that by definition, threading in email is
>> bro
iggd...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis LaMasters
mailto:curtislamast...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
that I'm using Gmail or that by definition, threading in email is
broken by design. I would h
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> I actually find that to be annoying to read. However, in the spirit
> of good internetship, I'll oblige. Sorry any problems I may have
> caused. Let me know if I did that correctly.
That looks correct. Unfortunately this is the way mail
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Curtis
> LaMasters wrote:
> > I actually find that to be annoying to read. However, in the spirit
> > of good internetship, I'll oblige. Sorry any problems I may have
> > caused. Let me know if I did that co
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Curtis
> LaMasters wrote:
>> I actually find that to be annoying to read. However, in the spirit
>> of good internetship, I'll oblige. Sorry any problems I may have
>> caused. Let me know if I did that correc
this is top posting
Above all else, this is just spamming the mailing list and wasted 5 minutes of
my life reading thru that horrible slew of emails
this is bottom posting
-Original Message-
From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:sullr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:56 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] A note about top vs bottom posting -- please
read and make sure you bottom post on our lists. Thank you.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28:14AM -0600, David Burgess wrote:
> It can be a lot harder than that. It's effectively illustrated in the
> links that Scott provided. A little effort in replying can save a lot
> of wasted effort in trying to bring oneself up to speed or refresh
> one's memory on a lo
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28:14AM -0600, David Burgess wrote:
It can be a lot harder than that. It's effectively illustrated in the
links that Scott provided. A little effort in replying can save a lot
of wasted effort in trying to bring oneself up to speed or refresh
one's
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM, wayne wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28:14AM -0600, David Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> It can be a lot harder than that. It's effectively illustrated in the
>>> links that Scott provided. A little effort in replying can save a lot
>>> of waste
wayne wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28:14AM -0600, David Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> It can be a lot harder than that. It's effectively illustrated in the
>>> links that Scott provided. A little effort in replying can save a lot
>>> of wasted effort in trying to bring oneself
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote:
> Unfortunately Gmail top posts by default. So expecting bottom posting to be
> and to remain the default behavior may be an exercise in futility. proper
> ettiquite or not, some people just bang off replies and figure everything is
> a-ok. This being a
David Rees wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote:
Unfortunately Gmail top posts by default. So expecting bottom posting to be
and to remain the default behavior may be an exercise in futility. proper
ettiquite or not, some people just bang off replies and figure everything is
a-ok
Thanks everyone. Learning has occurred.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Gary Buckmaster wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately Gmail top posts by default.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 02:59:23PM -0500, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> I find it funny when people assume because they do a certain thing,
> that they must not be doing x. I have 9 mailing lists that I
> participate in, and as I mentioned before, none have bothered me or
> others for that matter abo
- "Curtis LaMasters" wrote:
> Thanks everyone. Learning has occurred.
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
> http://www.builtnetworks.com
>
I really hate to fan the flames here... but I just HAD to do this:
http://diy.despair.com/output/poster84114313.jpg
The hilarity a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Curtis
LaMasters wrote:
> And this is bottom posting. Correct?
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
> http://www.builtnetworks.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubsc
> I really hate to fan the flames here... but I just HAD to do this:
>
> http://diy.despair.com/output/poster84114313.jpg
>
> The hilarity and simultaneous irritation this thread has caused is just
> fantastic.
>
> --Tim
Yes, I noticed that just as soon as I sent it. Thanks for the virtual
slap
This is a good example, why bottom-posting sucks...
Why do i need to scroll past all previous teks i read just few seconds
ago, following that thread?
If i need to read it, then i could scroll down, but rarely there is need
for that.
--
Veiko
iggd...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 a
I think that top-posting is better or simpler
top-posting is more natural, everything in the nature that is newer
is on the top ... this is what we as first see
on the other hand we are more trained to read from top to bottom,
the newest words in a message are on the bottom...
we write from top to
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:08:38PM +0300, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> This is a good example, why bottom-posting sucks...
God gracious help us. What's wrong with interleaved
posting?
> Why do i need to scroll past all previous teks i read just few seconds
> ago, following that thread?
Because they're D
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:08:38PM +0300, Veiko Kukk wrote:
>> This is a good example, why bottom-posting sucks...
>
> God gracious help us. What's wrong with interleaved
> posting?
>
>> Why do i need to scroll past all previous teks i read just
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM,
apiase...@midatlanticbb.com wrote:
> iggd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis LaMasters
>> mailto:curtislamast...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
>> that I'm using
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> This is a good example, why bottom-posting sucks...
> Why do i need to scroll past all previous teks i read just few seconds ago,
> following that thread?
> If i need to read it, then i could scroll down, but rarely there is need for
> that.
A g
Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> Gotta tell you guys...this is out right frustrating. Is it the fact
there's some buttons on the keyboard called cursor keys, they move the
little blob around which indicates where what you type will appear.
you press the cursor down and type the response at the bottom.
Curtis LaMasters wrote:
>> This is a bottom post.
> I actually find that to be annoying to read. However, in the spirit
this is why a forum is often best, as it basically forces
bottom-posting, but people can read the replies backwards if they want.
-
2009/7/31 Paul Mansfield :
> Curtis LaMasters wrote:
>>> This is a bottom post.
>> I actually find that to be annoying to read. However, in the spirit
>
>
> this is why a forum is often best, as it basically forces
> bottom-posting, but people can read the replies backwards if they want.
>
> -
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Curtis LaMasters [mailto:curtislamast...@gmail.com]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de julio de 2009 14:12
> Para: support@pfsense.com
> Asunto: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 06.2/5.0] Re: [pfSense Support] A note
> about top vs bottom posting -- please
49 matches
Mail list logo
