[users] Re: Top versus bottom

Well, then we're in agreement on how some users have been treated! Gosh, I'm overwhelmed to find that I have a perverse rationale and that I'm "outside the optimum operational profile of an e-list participant". I don't think I've ever actually seen what the inside of an "optimum operational p

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom

2007/11/26, Bruce Roorda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Well, then we're in agreement on how some users have been treated! > > Gosh, I'm overwhelmed to find that I have a perverse rationale and that > I'm "outside the optimum operational profile of an e-list participant". > I don't think I've ever actu

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom/Bruce

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 09:53, Bruce Roorda wrote: > Bottom posting has not been universally used, but seems to be the most > common practice here. bg: It is the most common practice on most listservs, because it works better in a multi-poster e-list environment. Bruce: > However, I have seen

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom/Bruce

Well, I have seen some very rude posts to inexperienced users who top posted, despite the fact that you "call BS" on the assertion. (That's a very colorful and amusing phrase.) And you do make quite an eloquent case that your preference should be the rule, on the basis of history. There are

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom/Bruce

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 11:16, Bruce Roorda wrote: > Well, I have seen some very rude posts to inexperienced users who top > posted, despite the fact that you "call BS" on the assertion. (That's a > very colorful and amusing phrase.) > Brewster replies: I think, Bruce, that you did not read my

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom/Bruce

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - Original Message From: bg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue 27 Nov 2007 07:54:09 EST > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 11:16, Bruce Roorda wrote: >> Well, I have seen some very rude posts to inexperienced users who top 8<-- snip -->8 > Bruce:

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom/Roorda

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 13:42, Bruce Roorda wrote: > Well, then we're in agreement on how some users have been treated! > > Gosh, I'm overwhelmed to find that I have a perverse rationale and that > I'm "outside the optimum operational profile of an e-list participant". > I don't think I've ever

[users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Bruce Roorda wrote: > I much prefer top posting. If I've been following the thread, I want > the new post first. I've already seen the others. > Sorry but I was following the thread about OOo popup interference and now I get this? Please don't hijack threads. Start a new one if you like. Thank

[users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

On 11/26/2007 09:53 AM, Bruce Roorda wrote: > Bottom posting has not been universally used, but seems to be the most > common practice here. However, I have seen inexperienced posters > berated for top posting by others who want to impose their own > preferences as rules. My own practice, desp

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom - Name calling

Dave Barton wrote: On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 11:16, Bruce Roorda wrote: Well, I have seen some very rude posts to inexperienced users who top 8<-- snip -->8 Bruce: I care not a fig for the preferences of an e-list environment, only for the people. bg: It is neither possible nor desirable

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again". So, a new thread was started, just as you ask. What more do you want? Please pay attention. Jonathan Kaye wrote: Sorry but I was following the thread about OOo popup in

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Hi, have a look at <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.openoffice.questions/168002> 2007/11/26, Bruce Roorda: > The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: > Top versus bottom posting yet again". So, a new thread was started, > just as y

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

On Monday 26 November 2007 12:21, Bruce Roorda wrote: > The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users]  Re: > Top versus bottom posting yet again".  So, a new thread was started, > just as you ask.  What more do you want?  Please pay attention. He _wa

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Roorda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: > Top versus bottom posting yet again". So, a new thread was started, > just as you ask. What more do you want? Please

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

2007/11/26, Bruce Roorda: The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again". So, a new thread was started, just as you ask. What more do you want? Please pay attention. have a look at <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.c

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

describe, and perhaps that's standard for such sites. I will be happy consider that difference in future. Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 26 November 2007 12:21, Bruce Roorda wrote: The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again&qu

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Thanks for the explanation. I think it would have been clearer if it had been top-posted, but as I have said before, that's a matter of preference. I do appreciate the time you put into composing an informative post. Richard Travers wrote: *Hint - the Reference and In-Reply-To headers of

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

On Monday 26 November 2007 13:36, Bruce Roorda wrote: > Today 13:36:08 >   > Well, threading often is done by email clients in accordance with the > words in the subject line, but thank you for pointing out that some work > differently.  I would be interested to know which those are. Kmail for o

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

.comp.openoffice.questions/168002> > > > > 2007/11/26, Bruce Roorda: > >> The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: > >> Top versus bottom posting yet again". So, a new thread was started, > >> just as you ask

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

[correction:] 2007/11/26, Manfred J. Krause wrote: > [...] > > ... bottom vs./and top posting inside a bottom posted posting ... meant: -> ... combined bottom vs./and top posting inside a bottom posted posting as reply to a top posted posting ... What the hell! - Manfred --

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Well, I do agree that is confusing. Manfred J. Krause wrote: [correction:] 2007/11/26, Manfred J. Krause wrote: [...] ... bottom vs./and top posting inside a bottom posted posting ... meant: -> ... combined bottom vs./and top posting inside a bottom posted posting as reply to a top posted

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Hi Bruce, 2007/11/26, Bruce Roorda wrote: > > Well, I do agree that is confusing. See also this thread -> From: NoOp Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 Subject: [Bottom Post v Top Post] was Re: OpenOffice running in the background

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Let's cut to the chase. Everybody's gnawing all over this bone and generating lots of heat but not much illumination. It's real simple, folks: forget all the other kinds of email venues - in a listserv environment, with multiposter threads, the only logical way to read these connected messages is

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

I'm sorry, I don't agree. bg wrote: It's real simple, folks: forget all the other kinds of email venues - in a listserv environment, with multiposter threads, the only logical way to read these connected messages is IN THE ORDER THEY WERE WRITTEN! Backwards, chronologically, doesn't cut it. -

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Bruce wrote: > Manfred J. Krause pointed out that one newsgroup archiving site works the way > you describe, and perhaps that's standard for such sites. UseNet clients thread by "Reply-To" and "Reference" headers. _Good_ email clients thread by "Reply-To" and "Reference" headers. Email clients

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

2007/11/26, jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Bruce wrote: > > > Manfred J. Krause pointed out that one newsgroup archiving site works > the way you describe, and perhaps that's standard for such sites. > > UseNet clients thread by "Reply-To" and "Reference" headers. > _Good_ email clients thread b

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Bottom posting has not been universally used, but seems to be the most common practice here. However, I have seen inexperienced posters berated for top posting by others who want to impose their own preferences as rules. My own practice, despite my preference for top posting, is to follow the

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

I looked Kmail up; I like the features. I'm pretty much stuck with Windows however. Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 26 November 2007 13:36, Bruce Roorda wrote: Today 13:36:08 Well, threading often is done by email clients in accordance with the words in the subject line, but thank you for po

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

I use Thunderbird in windows. There are add-ons for calender and scheduling. tc Bruce Roorda wrote: I looked Kmail up; I like the features. I'm pretty much stuck with Windows however. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL P

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Richard Travers wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Roorda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The subject line of the message to which you replied was "[users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again". So, a new thread was started, just as you ask. What more do

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Most of the interspersed posts I have seen have not been particularly clear, and become less clear as more posters reply. NoOp wrote: Please try to follow the guidelines for the list you are on. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [E

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Bruce Roorda wrote: I'm sorry, I don't agree. bg wrote: It's real simple, folks: forget all the other kinds of email venues - in a listserv environment, with multiposter threads, the only logical way to read these connected messages is IN THE ORDER THEY WERE WRITTEN! Backwards, chronologically

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

Robin Laing wrote: Top posting is a Microsoft plan to upset the balance of the universe. Finally a point I can relate to. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[users] Re: Top versus bottom -- Top-posting Troll/Idiot

Well, your point, and that of many others seems to be that top posting is contrary to common practice on the lists you participate in. Further, you find it inconvenient or unclear and believe that others do, too. Forgive me for enjoying your posts, but you haven't said anything new on the su

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom posting yet again

On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:54 AM, NoOp wrote: Please try to follow the guidelines for the list you are on. http://www.openoffice.org/ml_guidelines.html Back in the days of Fido-Mail, it was common for list owners to send a message periodically to the list that reminded users what the guideli

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom -- Top-posting Troll/Idiot

On Tuesday 27 November 2007 13:10, Bruce Roorda wrote: > I have only one small quibble with that; I think it should be "Never > argue with an idiot, he will drag you down..." Surely you meant "he or she" and it was a typo? ;-) Lisi

Re: [users] Re: Top versus bottom -- Top-posting Troll/Idiot

Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 27 November 2007 13:10, Bruce Roorda wrote: I have only one small quibble with that; I think it should be "Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down..." Surely you meant "he or she" and it was a typo? ;-) Lisi No, "he" as I used it is actually gender ne