Re: [OT] Posting styles (was: printer Kyocera FSC-5100DN)
- To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [OT] Posting styles (was: printer Kyocera FSC-5100DN)
- From: Indulekha <indulekha@theunworthy.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:59:13 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120408145913.GA20786@radhesyama>
- In-reply-to: <iNRse-7Qr-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
- References: <iKLjk-3is-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <iKLsZ-3w8-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <iKLW2-4ro-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <iKLW2-4ro-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <iKLW2-4ro-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <iKM5I-4Fs-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <iKMyK-5Dk-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <iNlVn-5xi-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <iNFho-4ej-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <iNRse-7Qr-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In linux.debian.user, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> No, you are confused. There are three entirely different distinct styles:
> 1) Top posting
> 2) Bottom posting
> 3) Interleaved, inline, conversation. style.
>
> Therefore, it makes sense to have *THREE* different definitions.
> correct?
>
There are only two styles, really: rational and lazy.
Call them what you wish, subdivide them if you like,
but in reality there is only *one* correct way to post.
The term "interleaved" makes sense, but is redundant as
it's been called "bottom posting" since the dawn of email
and usenet -- and it's generally understood by the everyone
who has a clue that doing it properly usually results in an
interleaved conversation. It isn't exactly rocket science!
:)
--
❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
Indulekha
Reply to: