Re: Named server question: DNS
From: Matt (not_at_chance.org)
Date: 04/19/04
- Next message: Mike Bothwell: "Re: Mike doesn't understand this group [Was: Linux/Windows? Dual Boot?]"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: Named server question: DNS"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Named server question: DNS"
- Next in thread: Andy Fraser: "Re: Named server question: DNS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:29:00 GMT
Bill Unruh wrote:
> Matt <not@chance.org> writes:
>
> ]#### WARNING This message is formated in a way to make a point ####
> ]#### THE POINT: putting the reply first is a bad idea ####
>
> ]Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> ]> Matt <not@chance.org> writes:
> ]>
> ]> ]Bill Unruh wrote:
> ]>
> ]> ]> Nuts. The mind works from the present backwards, and there is no
> need ]> to ]> review all of history everytime you want to make or read a
> new ]> comment.
> ]>
> ]> ]That is provided the reader has FOLLOWED the tread to begin with. If,
> the ]> ]reader is reading JUST that message, it is virtually unreadable.
> The mind ]> ]DOES NOT work from the present backward when trying to follow
> a ]> DISCUSSION. ]It may while trying to use a file cabinet, but a file
> cabinet ]> is not a ]DISCUSSION.
> ]>
>
> ]Why go though the hassle of having to search for the meaning in some
> ]"history quoted below" when it would be so easy for the reader just to
> ]follow the tread in a natural English reading style when top posting is
> not ]used? You have not given any rational reason for making it more
> difficult ]to follow the flow of the discussion by top posting. There is
> no reason to ]force the reader to SEARCH the history, other than your
> laziness.
>
> Actually it is more work.
> In this case I post interleaved because it is a specific idea I want to
> respond to.
But it is AFTER the idea. Where it make sense. However, you have yet to give
any reall reason that justifies top posting.
>
> I have no objections to people posting anyway they wish. What I object
> to is self styled netnews police who make up silly rules that they then
> insist that others abide by.
>
Of course you do. That is the only way you could justify posting in such a
nonsinsical way as to top post.
> ]I ask, if posting the response before the idea being responded (the way
> top ]posting does) is so great and useful, why are you not doing so here?
> Here ]for some reason, you have stopped top posting and reversed your
> order. ]Evidentaly, even YOU see advantage in keeping the ORDER readable.
>
> laziness. My editor positions the cursor at the bottom of the post.
That is because that is the BEST PLACE FOR IT. The only people that I know
of that put it at the top is MS in OE. Guess you agree with MS!
>
>
>
>
> ]You just don't get it? What REASON is there for treating the quoted
> material ]in a new message as archived stuff rather that QUOTED material?
> Quoting the ]material is NOT the same a archiving it. But again, if you
> want to REMIND ]the reader what the reply is about, why force them to read
> search around ]for the material being responded to (other than your
> laziness)? Again I
>
> a) Why do I care if some poster wants to be lazy?
I don't care if it is lazy, but I DO care if it makes the tread more
difficult to read.
> b) I want to know off the top whether the post is worth reading more
> about. Top posting allows that. Bottom does not.
Then you should want to know what the person is responding to. How will you
know of without knowing what the poster is talking about without knowing
the CONTEXT of his reply?
> c) I really do not care how you post
Of course not. Rude people often don't care about the rude behavior of
others, this comes from a lack of respect.
> or why.
that much is OBVIOUS! If you DID care about why people do not top post, you
would understand why it is such a rude thing to do.
> I do object to your trying
> to hijack a discussion by trying to enforce silly rules.
Funny, if you actualy DID read the post you objected to,
Message-ID: <llzgc.52805$BV1.27306@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, you would
have noticed that I DID respond to the subject of the thead "If you want to
have your local machines addressed by the DNS, then yes. If all you want is
a caching DNS then no." Addressing the TOPIC is NOT hijacking the thread. I
then ADDED a comment at the end. posting an additional comment AFTER
addressing the TOPIC is NOT hijacking the thread. The person that hijacted
the tread is the person that made the first post without addressing the
topic of the thread, which would be YOU!
- Next message: Mike Bothwell: "Re: Mike doesn't understand this group [Was: Linux/Windows? Dual Boot?]"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: Named server question: DNS"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Named server question: DNS"
- Next in thread: Andy Fraser: "Re: Named server question: DNS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
