Top & Bottom posting vs Netiquette [was Re: CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)]
From: Robert Hull (Robert_at_please.do-not-spam.me.uk)
Date: 01/16/04
- Next message: Richard Steven Hack: "Re: Shell Programming Tutorial"
- Previous message: Robert Hull: "Re: CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)"
- Next in thread: Walter Mautner: "Re: [OT] CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:07:39 +0000
In message <bu7fnc$4ep$1@string.physics.ubc.ca>, Bill Unruh
<unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote
>Harry Phillips <harry@hkjsfh.com> writes:
>
[Snip]
>
>]Hi try following along with this little story...
>
[Snip illustration of why Top-Posting is a PITA]
>
>]Now lets try it again WITHOUT top posting...
>
>]----
>
>] > > > What is one of the most annoying responses on Usenet?
>] > > When they top post.
>] > Why is top posting so hard to read?
>]In the English speaking world we read left to right, top to bottom.
>
>
>Horseshit. Those little marks at the beginning of the lines are there
>for a purpose. They indicate what is new (no little mark) and what is
>old (one or lots of little marks).
True, but they do *not* give you the context of a Top-Posted remark.
>Apparently you have not discovered this yet.
I discovered it a long time ago. What I have yet to discover is how to
tell the *context* of comments in a discussion where the replies are
either top or bottom posted with no snipping; worse still where top or
bottom posting follows correctly (according to RFC 1855) interleaved
comments; and worst of all a mixture of all three.
>
>One of the most annoying responses on Usenet is the person who copies 27
>pages of old post only to put a one word reply at the botton.
Couldn't agree more.
>Had he top posted, I could have ignored the response much much much more
>easily.
Problem is, that you get so used to ignoring the twerps who top post
that you run the risk of missing when they say something that should not
be left unchallenged.
>
>Top posting is far more polite many times than is bottom posting.
Such as this remark. Top Posting is *always* impolite, bottom-posting
without snipping is *always* impolite, bottom posting *with* snipping is
less impolite. Interleaving your remarks in their context is more polite
and conforms to netiquette.
> It is like a file cabinet. New material at the top where it is easily
>reached, old stuff below for reference.
You must have a *weird* filing cabinet. In every filing cabinet I use,
material is stored in the drawer that contains other related items. I
certainly don't know any secretary worth their salary who spends their
time moving stuff down a drawer every time that they have to file new
material. OTOH, I know of plenty who would file a new progress report
about Project X (for example) in the same drawer as the previous report
on that subject.
> Most people have read the post the reply is to .
That simply is not true. NetNews does not all propagate chronologically
- it depends on the path that the article takes to any given server - so
there is no guarantee that someone reading an article has read the
predecessor.
Equally, some people only start reading a thread on a subject with which
they are unfamiliar when there is at least one response.
> They do not need a lengthy recapitulation befor reading the new stuff.
That is true - they do not need a *lengthy* recap, they do, however need
to see the context.
>
>So. Please top post.
>
Please do not be that crass. Let's try this article as it would have
appeared had I have followed your advice and see how easy it is to
follow the argument. (I have placed it below the following line).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but they do *not* give you the context of a Top-Posted remark.
I discovered it a long time ago. What I have yet to discover is how to
tell the *context* of comments in a discussion where the replies are
either top or bottom posted with no snipping; worse still where top or
bottom posting follows correctly (according to RFC 1855) interleaved
comments; and worst of all a mixture of all three.
Couldn't agree more.
Problem is, that you get so used to ignoring the twerps who top post
that you run the risk of missing when they say something that should not
be left unchallenged.
Such as this remark. Top Posting is *always* impolite, bottom-posting
without snipping is *always* impolite, bottom posting *with* snipping is
less impolite. Interleaving your remarks in their context is more polite
and conforms to netiquette.
You must have a *weird* filing cabinet. In every filing cabinet I use,
material is stored in the drawer that contains other related items. I
certainly don't know any secretary worth their salary who spends their
time moving stuff down a drawer every time that they have to file new
material. OTOH, I know of plenty who would file a new progress report
about Project X (for example) in the same drawer as the previous report
on that subject.
That simply is not true. NetNews does not all propagate chronologically
- it depends on the path that the article takes to any given server - so
there is no guarantee that someone reading an article has read the
predecessor.
Equally, some people only start reading a thread on a subject with which
they are unfamiliar when there is at least one response.
That is true - they do not need a *lengthy* recap, they do, however need
to see the context.
Please do not be that crass. Let's try this article as it would have
appeared had I have followed your advice and see how easy it is to
follow the argument. (I have placed it below the following line).
In message <bu7fnc$4ep$1@string.physics.ubc.ca>, Bill Unruh
<unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote
>Harry Phillips <harry@hkjsfh.com> writes:
>
>]Nic wrote:
>]> Thanks for the reply Walter,
>
>]<snip>
>
>]> Thanks for your reply again, anymore support would be GREATLY appreciated.
>]> Thanks!
>]> -Nic
>]>
>
>]Hi try following along with this little story...
>
>]----
>
>] > Why is top posting so hard to read?
>] > > > What is one of the most annoying responses on Usenet?
>] > > When they top post.
>]In the English speaking world we read left to right, top to bottom.
>
>]----
>
>]Now lets try it again WITHOUT top posting...
>
>]----
>
>] > > > What is one of the most annoying responses on Usenet?
>] > > When they top post.
>] > Why is top posting so hard to read?
>]In the English speaking world we read left to right, top to bottom.
>
>
>Horseshit. Those little marks at the beginning of the lines are there
>for a purpose. They indicate what is new (no little mark) and what is
>old (one or lots of little marks). Apparently you have not discovered
>this yet.
>
>One of the most annoying responses on Usenet is the person who copies 27
>pages of old post only to put a one word reply at the botton.
>Had he top posted, I could have ignored the response much much much more
>easily.
>
>Top posting is far more polite many times than is bottom posting. It is
>like a file cabinet. New material at the top where it is easily reached,
>old stuff below for reference. Most people have read the post the reply
>is to . They do not need a lengthy recapitulation befor reading the new
>stuff.
>
>So. Please top post.
>
--
Robert Talking to yourself - first sign of madness
Answering yourself back - first sign of schizophrenia
I go one better: If I don't like the answer ...
I put it to a majority vote
- Next message: Richard Steven Hack: "Re: Shell Programming Tutorial"
- Previous message: Robert Hull: "Re: CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)"
- Next in thread: Walter Mautner: "Re: [OT] CM8738 On-Board Sound Problems (Works...mostly....mostly...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
