Re: Top posting
(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* of it was relevant to what you said. For most people,
that's about *three or four screenfuls* that they would have had to
scroll down, through multiple levels of quoted text. And the only
relevant part of the quoted text was the very first paragraph, which
relates to your very last paragraph.
BTW, I'm only picking on your message because of the sheer size of the
quoted text. Others have done the same thing in this thread, but with
much less quoted material.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:02:58 -0500, Jim Hall <volunteer@revealed.net> said:
> Wim De Smet wrote:
>> Hi, Okay, since we're talking about etiquette: You're not supposed to
>> send mails on a public mailing list to people directly (only send to
>> the person and the mailinglist if they specifically request a CC).
>> Sometimes the thread goes offtopic and it becomes a personal
>> discussion but this is not one of those cases. On to your message.
>> On 6/10/05, Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday June 9 2005 3:06 pm, Wim De Smet wrote:
>>>> For example, you sent your boss a mail 2 weeks ago about feature x
>>>> you want to implement and he sends you a reply now saying 'go
>>>> ahead'.
>>> Smart users would change the subject at that point and continue the
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Subject: RE: New feature in Big Project ...becomes... Subject: Go
>>> Ahead on New Feature in Big Project ...or... Subject: Go ahead RE:
>>> New feature in Big Project
>>>
>>> and a slightly more verbose expansion on that go ahead in the
>>> traditional location.
>> I don't see how this is in anyway usefull. I'll have to read the
>> message to get possible specifics anyway, and the boss's broken email
>> software might not pick up on the fact that it is in the same thread
>> when I send a reply. (maybe not such a valid point) I do agree 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 are not very good with
>>>> email.
>>> Again, what's with this "newbies aren't expected to do it right and
>>> aren't allowed to learn" attitude? Newbies are ignorant, not
>>> stupid. They can learn.
>> You cut in the wrong place. So basically I went off on a tangent
>> here, it wasn't really related to the former sentence except in the
>> sense that you should try to establish some sort of mailing list
>> policy and don't be so surprised if newbies get it wrong. If you tell
>> them _politely_ what is the accepted practice on this or that mailing
>> list, they'll probably follow you. I realize that wasn't exactly
>> clear, but I never meant to say you shouldn't try to tell people what
>> is the preferred practice.
>>
>>>> It's one of my pet peeves: when people write a mail in real life,
>>>> they do all they can they follow a set standard of writing
>>>> mail. But when they go online, they seem to go crazy. Perhaps less
>>>> so on this list (where some people seem to forget the role of
>>>> punctuation), but in places where HTML mails are allowed, it's
>>>> really bad. I hope this is one of the things modern education puts
>>>> an end to. Instead of teaching 12 year olds how they 'use' MS Word,
>>>> they could teach em something usefull for a change.
>>> My school district made rfc1855 mandatory if you wanted to use
>>> network resources.
>> And I left this in for completeness since nobody on the mailing list
>> got a chance to read your reply yet. Next time please reply to the
>> list. By the way, you might want to tone it down a little bit. The
>> agressive language is getting on my nerves a little bit, and I'm sure
>> I'm not the only one. This is also a part of email etiquette. Top and
>> bottom posting is not a settled argument, people have been going back
>> and forward on it for ages and there is still no end in sight. Sure
>> there are a couple of ways to reply to a message that are ostensibly
>> bad, given an example, but this is not allways the case. In many
>> cases, both ways of replying can be acceptable, which was my original
>> point. Wim
>>
> Since this discussion seems to winding down, I think it's safe for me
> to comment. Agreed that there's a little agression, but overall I have
> to say it's not bad compared to what I've seen. Our local LUG had what
> I call a "religious war". A couple of meetings almost became
> riots. What someone here called "flaming" was, to me, much closer to a
> mild fit of picque. Except for rare outbursts, I'm utterly amazed at
> how peaceful and sane this list is.
> 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.
> Thanks for the interlude, Jim
--
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Reply to: