[svlug] Re: (Slightly OT) Consumer Reports continues to ignore Linux.
svlug at linuxguy.com
Wed Feb 16 12:47:45 PST 2005
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Brian J. Tarricone said:
> Walt Reed wrote:
> >What the heck are you disagreeing with? Mike's plea to file a
> >feature request or Karsten's rant against top posting? It's unclear
> >(which is one of the reasons top posting is so bad.)
> Oh c'mon. Are you being deliberately dense? I disagree with his
> disregard for the preferred list reply format, but to say the meaning
> his post wasn't clear sounds like you're just looking for a reason to
> argue. Further, your imagined lack of clarity here has little to do
No. I was making a point. Whenever someone top posts to something and
starts out with "I agree or disagree" it is FREQUENTLY unclear. More
often than not due to the lack of trimming.
> with top-posting: if he had bottom-posted to the same message he replied
> to, the same (or worse) lack of clarity would exist, since the "Please,
> file feature requests..." text would be directly above his reply, and
> intrinsically associated with it.
If he posted "I disagree" under the STATEMENT he was disagreeing with,
it becomes clear. If he did so under the entire quoted message complete
with footers it would not be. This should be obvious for someone not
being deliberatly dense.
> >What value to this conversation does the multiple copies of the svlug
> >mailing list footer have? I'll make it easy... NONE. I've left them in
> >to make a point. Top posting "usually" means zero trimming. I would bet
> >that >99% of top posters do no trimming.
> Probably true, though 87.341% of all statistics are made up on the spot
> ^_~. However, some kinds of trimming in some situations can be
Did I say that it was a FACT that 99% of top posters do no trimming? I
> For some types of email communication, top-posting is more convenient
> and informative. It's also a lot easier to come up with an exact record
> of the "conversation", and have it all in one place. It also helps in
> the case of forwards. For example, where I work, the unspoken
> convention is top-posting. If I'm in communication with someone, and
I agree that top posting is common in business, but in technical
discussions over email it tends not to be do the the lack of clarity.
You generally agree, disagree, or have comments about multiple points.
If you top post ONLY, then you need to start adding additional verbage
to identify context, such as "I disagree that top posting is bad." Without
context, the simple "I disagree" is ambiguous therefor is poor
> later decide to forward the conversation to someone else, the recipient
> can easily follow the conversation by starting at the bottom and working
> their way back up. This is of course a bit backwards, but it's more
> convenient during the conversation to not have to scroll to the bottom
> each time one receives a reply. Also, I tend to keep a good mental
> record of the various business-related threads in which I'm involved, so
> I rarely (if ever) need to reference the quoted portions. I'm not
> saying top-posting is always better; I just thought I'd provide a
> counter-example to the argument that inline replies with trimming is
> *always* the best way.
If comments are inline, they can read top to bottom and everything is in
context. That is a heck of a lot easier on the reader.
> But, as I said, it all boils down to establishing conventions and
> guidelines. The svlug list policy document (referenced above) clearly
> states the preferred reply format. If you don't want to follow that,
> perhaps you shouldn't post. It's fine to disagree with it, but it's
> rude to disregard it.
> FWIW, I have Thunderbird set up in "top-posting" mode. I find that way
> easier, as it lets me start at the top and work my way down through the
> quoted text, trimming and replying as I go. Now if only I could
> configure it so I don't have to remove the blank line at the top...
Ahh. Now I understand the attack. I have offended your personal favorite
More information about the svlug