Re: Top posting
On Friday 10 June 2005 03:05 am, Basajaun wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 05:26 pm, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:06 +0100, Graham Smith wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I would argue that top-posters fall into the same category as most
> > > users of proprietary 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 benefit all of mankind.
>
> [snip[
>
> > That's the most self-serving, self-centered, one-sided point of view I've
> > read on any tech list in years. In 3 paragraphs, you manage to insult
> > users of proprietary software a number of ways, calling them self
> > centered over and over, and say how FOSS people are more world oriented
> > and less self-centered.
> >
> > Yet, while you are going on and on calling others self-centered, you are
> > totally incapable of seeing how "Me! Me! Me!" your point of view is. As
> > long as people follow your rules, they are open minded. People who don't
> > are closed minded. So does it not occur to you that many people think
> > differently than you, so top posting may work better for you?
>
> [snip]
>
> Yes, and many people could choose to believe that Mars is closer to the
> Sun than the Earth, yet it would not make it true, would it?
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?
Oh, nothing. I get it. Just your way of saying you think something is a fact
when it is an opinion. There's a big difference between fact and opinion and
you don't see that your "2 euro cents" is an opinion, not a fact.
> Bottom-posting plus trimming _is_ the Good Thing to do, period. It is
> not a matter of preferences. It is not a matter of your social
> background, your language, your religion or your pet's name. Opinions
> are like... well, everyone has one. But when talking about facts,
> either something is true or it is not. Someone's opinion about a fact
> is not worth as much as some other's one. Simply one is right, and the
> other one is wrong, and millions of people preaching the wrong thing
> don't make it right, just as the right thing is not so because some
> others support it. The right thing is the right thing.
Again, that's your opinion, also the opinion of others. From this thread,
it's clear it is not everyone's opinion. Yes, it is the accepted practice on
the net from way back, but that does not make it the best or only way to
post. Insisting we have to stick with something because there are some who
say it is the best or because it's tradition does not make your opinion fact.
Insisting the current or old way is the best or only way is the same type of
attitude that we saw when rock 'n' roll first started to emerge and the older
generation said it was evil and terrible and should not be tolerated. Such
people had the opinion rock was morally wrong and inferior to all other
music. They may or may not have been right, but the point is it was only
their opinion and is generally the opinion of each generation about the music
of the younger generations.
So come out of the dark ages and separate opinion from fact.
> You can top-post out of selfishness or laziness, and you might be
> forgiven. But don't try to sell us that you "made the great effort" of
> top-posting because you thought that "it was much more readable an
> generally nicer" to others.
While you may notice I inline post, I've seen many top postings that were much
easier to read than others. It may be a short 1-line "Thank you," or
something similar. In my overall experience, I know I've never had much of a
problem reading top posts, but, then again, I'm open minded and understand
that different people process information in different ways. Some are stuck
in a linear mode and others have transcended that and can process it in other
ways.
> Supporting top-posting because you either follow the threads (and don't
> need the context) or don't read them at all (so the text of the very
> last message can help you choose to skip the thread), is, actually,
> very selfish.
>
> Firstly, if you don't need the context to follow a thread, then don't
> support top-posting, and instead support an absolute lack of quotes
> (after all, if they are not needed, why make people with limited access
> to the internet needlessly download them?).
Not drawing a line -- taking an extreme case and saying it is the same as
something else. Logical fallacies like that don't work.
> Secondly, as many others have mentioned, you are disregarding the
> many-many people that can, and will, reach the post when surfing the
> net looking for some specific information (or not), and (correct)
> bottom-posting can save their day. Or even people reading the list only
> occasionally... it is better for everyone!
I know whenever I've searched and found any post with info I needed, I've
never found just one post, but the whole thread and almost always the entire
archive. Even if the one post I find has my answer, I've always gone back to
read the thread, in case something I need but don't know about is in an
earlier part of the discussion.
> Just my 2 euro cents,
Yep, your opinion.
Which you present as 100% fact.
Hal
Reply to: