Re: [SLE] Have you seen this? - A new Rule for the Country Club

• Previous message: C Hamel: "Re: [SLE] Peer to Peer file shareing"
• In reply to: James Knott: "Re: [SLE] Have you seen this? - A new Rule for the Country Club"
• Next in thread: Stephen W: "Re: [SLE] Amen Vince"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:07:07 -0800
To: suse-linux-e@suse.com

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:40:26 -0500, James Knott wrote:

> Vince Littler wrote:
>
> >Logic tells me that bottom posting is preferable - not that I always
> >follow it. But if it is necessary to explain the Logic year-in, year-out,
> >that Logic cannot be strong enough. That too is Logic.

Unless those to whom you are explaining it to are new and unfamiliar
with the medium. It can safely be said that top posting is a common
error. I find very few people with much experience in e-mail
discussions who do this or defend it.

I do, however, find people who think somehow that their word is the
be-all, end-all pronouncement doing this, as if their words were a
gift from whatever higher power they choose to worship to all us
less-enlightened folks. They can't be bothered to respond
specifically to points raised in context.

I also find people who expect me to remember the context to which
they're replying. As if I didn't receive a thousand e-mails a day
(not counting spam). As if the subject they choose to talk about is
the only one that matters in the whole [multiple expletives omitted]
world.

So gosh, I guess I think top-posting is generally arrogant.
>
> I find there are some situations where bottom posting is preferable and
> other top posting. Perhaps this is one of those situations where there
> is not only one "true" way, but something that changes with context.
>
With a strong preference for "bottom" posting.

The arguments about functionality are, for me, crucial. Sometimes
someone will express a number of concepts in a single sentence, and I
need to respond to each of these in turn. This cannot be done, in
context, with a top post.

And when you extract statements from their context, you will almost
inevitably misrepresent them. Misrepresenting your opponents or
others' statements is not an ethical way of arguing. Context is
crucial. And responding in context is only fair.

Though I can't quite explain why, fair arguments somehow carry a lot
more weight with me. They just do.

It's hard to think of a specific case where I've thought it
appropriate to top post. But I remember that it has happened. When
I've done this, it's always been with some sort of an introduction,
and then I say something to the effect that specific comments follow,
and I follow the bottom posting style thenceforth.

The real argument for top posting, as a general rule, seems to be
laziness. I mostly see it done with replies that have nothing to do
with the posts to which they respond, as the sender couldn't be
bothered to retrieve the address to which he's sending, and just opted
to mess up my threading instead. I don't see it done in any serious
discussions, except by, and there's no nice way to put this, idiots
who want to ramble on about something of a variable relevance to the
topic and who misrepresent the statements they respond to.

To be honest, I don't see a lot of top posting, these days. Perhaps
because I ignore those who do it.

-- 
David Benfell, LCP
benfell@parts-unknown.org
---
Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html
-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

• Previous message: C Hamel: "Re: [SLE] Peer to Peer file shareing"
• In reply to: James Knott: "Re: [SLE] Have you seen this? - A new Rule for the Country Club"
• Next in thread: Stephen W: "Re: [SLE] Amen Vince"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]