Re: Top posting
On Monday 13 June 2005 09:01 pm, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:15 -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > It is a metaphor. In both cases, groups have set themselves up as the
> > authority on what is right and wrong, whether it is a technical or moral
> > argument.
>
> Any pre-existing group dictates policy to newcomers. When I go into a
> new job, if they tell me to top post, I top post. When I go to a new
> mailing list, if they tell me to bottom post, I bottom post. If a new
> group doesn't specify how to post, I'll always bottom post since, in my
> opinion, it makes the thread easier to read. The point is that in any
> pre-existing group, the will of the group is 'right', and the will of
> the newcomer is irrelevant. This may not be 'fair', but it's the way the
> world works.
Yes, it does dictate policy. And policy can be enforced anal retentively or
with compassion. I argue to avoid #1, and temper enforcement with #2. If
you've noticed, I inline post, and rarely top post. I know that is how it is
done, but the will of the group is not always right. Where there is one,
there is a majority of one, and if that person feels they have a point to
make, it should be made. For instance, the local country club used to have a
"whites only" policy (this is in Richmond, VA). One time Arthur Ashe (for
those that don't remember, a famous and excellent tennis pro from Richmond)
was back in Richmond and a friend brought him to the club to practice, and he
was asked to leave. That's group policy. While there is a big difference
between head-in-the-butt discrimination like that and top posting, the point
is if someone feels there is a wrong, or a point that needs to be more
closely examined, it should be examined.
> --snip--
>
> > the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun. What I've noticed is that those
> > in favor generally are saying understanding and tolerating different ways
> > is appropriate, while those against are saying, "this works, it makes
> > sense, and it's right," without opening the door (which I've mentioned a
> > few times) that many people process information in different ways. I've
> > basically seen arguments that say that style makes it easy for one group
> > to read, so that makes it right.
>
> My response:
>
> "That's the most self-serving, self-centered, one-sided point of view
> I've read on any tech list in years."
Thank you.
My words have proven so important to you that you took the time out of your
life to go back and look them up and re-use them. So, before I say anything
else, thank you for using your actions to pay me a compliment and let me know
that at some level, what I wrote had such an impact that you remembered them,
and took the time to look them up and quote them directly.
(Side note, ot, but which I mention to show just what kind of strong effect
remembering someone else's words can have on them: I had a case once when I
worked at Egghead for a short time, where an Asst. Manager came up to me,
after a week, quoted something I said word for word and threatened me in
front of a whole group. I said, "So that one short sentence effected you so
much that you've chosen to still be angry a week later? Just how much time
have you spent thinking about my comment over the past week?" He said
something like, "A lot". At that point, he didn't understand what was going
on, but just realized he had "lost." Everyone around ignored him from then
on because it was so clear he had been obsessing over revenge for a trivial
remark that was nothing more than basically putting him in his place as a
clueless, rude, manipulating person in the first place.)
I'm making a point. You can call it self serving or not. I'm making an
observation about a group of people responding to a specific thread. When I
originally used my words above, they were in reference to someone trashing
all those involved in proprietary software. There is a big difference: I
have been able to observe all the people upon which I am commenting. The
person who originally commented on proprietary software was not able to
observer anywhere near even 1% of that group and was creating a strongly
negative stereotype based on observing, as I said, less than 1% of that
group.
Is the statement true? I feel there is enough evidence to say it is,
otherwise I would not have said it. Did the truth serve my point? Yes, but
I made a statement I could support, not one that was totally unsupportable.
> To illustrate the point:
>
> "What I've noticed is that those in favor [of top posting] generally are
> saying understanding and tolerating different ways is appropriate..."
>
> My response:
>
> So top posters are morally superior to bottom posters because they, by
> (your) definition, are open-minded. And bottom posters are morally
> inferior because they, by definition, are closed-minded.
Hmmm....
I'm trying to find where I ever said they were morally superior. I never said
it, so I think it comes down to did I imply it or did you (or anyone else)
infer it. Open mindedness is not necessarily superior to closed mindedness.
In many cases it is, but that does not give me a moral high ground.
> Side note:
>
> "Hi, pot. This is kettle."
Thank you, again. It's nice to know that at some level my words effected you
so deeply you remembered them, and took the time to find them and re-use
them.
> --snip--
>
> > Information processing is also quite subjective. I learned that in a
> > decade of dealing with the learning disabled. That's the point I've been
> > driving toward for this whole thread, but everyone that has one way of
> > looking at things is so sure they are right, they are literally unable to
> > see another point of view, or even dare to consider it.
>
> Disclaimer:
>
> Just to stress one point before I get any further into this, the above
> is NOT a flame. It's a semi-gentle poking fun at. :) As you may have
> noticed by my first post in this thread (top vs bottom posting ==
> proprietary vs free software users == self-centered vs group-oriented),
> I like to make exaggerated points.
You do go to quite extreme points. If that's your style, fine. I personally
find it often doesn't work because you end up with a "not drawing the line"
situation. For example, if I say one needs to be tolerant of other
behaviors, and I'm referring to something as simple as top-posting, there's
always gotta be someone who says, "So you mean if someone kills someone, we
should tolerate it." The two situations are not comparable, and extending
one into the other really has no basis.
So I guess I'm saying/asking (and not in a debate format, but out of
curiosity), when you go for extreme points, doesn't that often hurt your
point because you're taking it too far?
> I no more think that ALL proprietary
> software users are evil than I think that your above points illustrate
> your lack of intellect and utter lack of contribution to this thread.
Thank you for the point. And I agree. Personally, I even though I had never
really understood what FREE software was about until a few years ago, now I
find I cringe whenever I have to pay for a program for which I'll never have
the source code, never be able to patch on my own (or find patches from other
programmers), and is completely controlled (and often "obsoleted" early) by a
company solely on monetary grounds rather than on quality grounds. The only
proprietary software I have that I use anymore are the Myst games and 3
copies of Windows, which are used only for playing Myst and for testing my
software on Windows.
> Your posts thus far have shown that you are certainly intelligent (you
> must be, you do use Debian after all :), and that you are (most of the
> time at least) contributing very important and reasonably objective
> information.
That's my intent, at least on this thread. If you notice, I don't top post
(unless it's a quick, "It worked" or other info that is appropriately
pre-pended on the front. I prefer inline posting. I play by the rules of
the group, and in some other groups, I keep hoping inline posting will catch
on, but it doesn't. However, I taught for a number of years in a lot of
classrooms that were nothing near "normal." I learned that people process
information in many different ways, and that this whole "normal" thing is
really a myth. Some get used to one way, and refuse to accept that other
ways may be just as good, or even better. They also think that what works
for them should be the best for everyone.
> Response:
>
> I've been following this thread pretty intently since the beginning, but
> this is only my 2nd (relevant) post in it as I've have been busy
> observing. I'd rather be thought a fool than open my mouth and remove
> all doubt. :)
>
> I think a very important point to make here is that you (among others)
> are fighting the wrong battle. Most everyone in the thread just keeps
> bringing up top vs bottom posting over and over again.
>
> I think the real issue, and the one that gets briefly brought up and
> then promptly forgotten, is posting in context. That is, trimming,
> quoting, and replying. Top posting is, at best, not conducive to in-line
> quoting and replying, and at worst completely incompatible with it.
> Bottom posting is certainly conducive to in-line quoting, though it
> certainly does not directly cause it. By the definition of top-posting,
> _IF_ someone was, in fact, using in-line quoting with their preferred
> posting style, their responses would PRECEDE each quote.
>
> If an individual places text at the top of an email, and then proceeds
> to use in-line quoting thereafter, that person is bottom-posting because
> the response FOLLOWS the quote.
>
> One final point to make here is that, from a human (not technical)
> standpoint, replies to messages should be sent in a format that will
> convey the content of the message to the recipient in the most efficient
> manner. If your recipient is more comfortable with, and therefore more
> efficient at processing top-posted material, then reply in a top-posted
> fashion or vice versa. The first rule of communication is that the
> content of your message is irrelevant if you cannot convey it to your
> audience. If I have to tell you the meaning of life, and you understand
> none of the languages that I speak, the importance of my message is
> completely irrelevant. And if you will not be able to comprehend any
> message which is not top-posted, then it is my responsibility to
> top-post when communicating with you. (If, in fact, I give a damn about
> getting my message across.)
>
> Wow... that stretched out much longer than I expected... we now return
> you to your regularly scheduled debate. :)
I think that is an important point (so important, I left all those paragraphs
intact!). Notice that I am not arguing for top posting, but arguing to not
ban it or ostracize those who use it. I've seen many people that top post
and just add on to what was there before, so after about 5 replies, the
entire thread is still in the most recent post. That may frustrate dial-up
users, but it keeps the thread intact.
You are right that the point of communication is clarity. Sometimes that can
actually be achieved through top posting, other times by inline, and
sometimes by bottom posting. That's why I've taken the stand I have. Many
times a top-posting post can be better at keeping things in context and
presenting needed info better than other formats. I've found that most of
the time when I read someone's top-posting comments, it's clear what they are
replying to, and if not, I can check below. It's like a book with footnotes.
If a point isn't clear and footnoted, check on what it says. If it is clear
and you don't need explanation, skip the footnotes.
Hal
Reply to: