Re: Top posting
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 12:05 am, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 22:33 -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > 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,
>
> You're absolutely right. The will of the group most definitely is NOT
> always right. However, in a situation like d-u, if you want to
> participate in the group and get help from the group, you either play by
> the group's rules or not at all.
Yes, that is an excellent point. I play by the rules. I am simply standing
for those who may either not know the rules, or may actually be confused
because top posting works for them and inline or bottom posting doesn't. I'm
stubborn in that I am almost always standing up for the minority that others
feel they should write off.
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> That was me. And the stereotype was very much intended to be both a
> stereotype and negative. Users of proprietary software have just as much
> right to use that software as I have to use free software. I would not
> aim to deprive them of that right. However, in exercising that right,
> they diminish and potentially undermine my ability to use free software,
> so therefore I do not like them and will not pretend that I do. To
> paraphrase a great quote, I may defend your right to say what you want,
> but I sure as hell don't have to pretend to like it. :)
I don't agree that someone else's use of proprietary software they diminish
your ability to use FOSS, but I'd be interested in hearing the reason behind
it.
> --snip--
>
> > 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.
>
> I very much inferred it, particularly from the bit that I quoted. The
> fact that the paragraph was making a generalization very probably had a
> good deal to do with how I took the sentence. (See above about
> generalizations.)
One point that impresses me is that you are aware of the difference between
imply and infer, and who does which one. I've seen that point sidestepped
or, more often, blundered over by people who either don't want to see the
difference, or have forgotten high school English. Maybe I was
overgeneralizing, but the intent was not to claim a high ground.
> --snip--
>
> > 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.
>
> Same as above. I may not agree with all you have to say, but you speak
> your peace well so I tend to remember it.
Thank you. You have also done an excellent job at making your points clearly
and well. I agree about defending what a person has to say, and I'd always
prefer to hear someone disagree and argue their point well than hear someone
agree and say nothing but crap that they think is logic. At least I can
learn from the former. The latter not only doesn't educate, but can weaken
an overall argument.
<snip>
> > 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?
>
> What I try to do is state extreme points bluntly and with humor. I
> always express what my stance on a position is, but I try to show it in
> an extreme enough manner to get a chuckle out of my audience. If you
> take the time to chuckle at what I've said, you're less likely to
> immediately become angry at it and disregard everything in the message.
That's a good way to do it. I don't use much humor (witness my attempt at a
sort of double irony in my first post on this thread that just didn't work
and) in discussions, since it falls flat. I can write funny, and I can write
to prove my point, but I've never learned to balance the two.
Understanding the anger in a reader is important. Sometimes a post seems
intended to do nothing but anger the opposition, and all that does is make
them want to anger you in return. Then you have nothing but a zero-sum game.
<snip>
> (See initial point about group rules.) I definitely agree that people
> who choose to top-post should not be banned or ostracized. I do feel
> that if a top-poster comes to d-u and is told nicely (as is usually the
> case around here actually) to not top post, they should respect that and
> not do it. If they don't respect the group's wishes in that regard then
> they are not entitled to receiving support from the group either.
>
> Coincidentally, one thing that I've noticed is that the majority of
> top-posters (uh oh, generalization coming up) tend to be top-posters out
> of ignorance, not preference. (Much like most Internet Explorer/Outlook
> Express users are IE/OE users out of ignorance of better alternatives.)
I never realized just how ignorant until recently, when I helped a friend and
told him to stop using Internet Explorer. He said he didn't think they used
it. When I finally sat down with him, he clicked on the big "E" and I
realized he had no clue what the program was, or that it was even a program
separate from the OS (or even what an OS was). All he knew was that the "E"
was the Internet, and when I installed Firefox, from his view, it was just a
different symbol to click on. I realized if I was going to keep helping my
Windows-using friends, I was going to have to find a way to communicate with
people that didn't even understand clicking on an icon runs a specific
program.
> In this context, I would very much argue that Microsoft is the greatest
> peddler of ignorance the world has ever seen.
I'd give it to Amway/Quixtar, really, but that 's because I've been
researching them lately. Microsoft comes in a close 2nd.
<snip>
> I usually deal with emails (discussion group and otherwise) in 'bursts'.
> I don't keep up with it on an hourly basis, but I get caught up with it
> every couple of days or so. If a discussion doesn't start and end within
> the time-frame of when I get caught up with mails, it becomes very
> difficult for me to keep track of who's saying what with regards to what
> without proper context.
I seem to have a much better context memory than I thought. I've found if I
leave something (a book, email, whatever), I can think I've forgotten it, but
when I get back to it, once I read a few bits of it, the associative memories
take over and usually I can reconnect.
Thanks for your comments. I'd have to say they really are about the most well
thought out replies in this entire thread.
Hal
Reply to: