Re: BBC's awful tech/mydoom coverage

From: John Winters (newstmp_at_sinodun.org.uk)
Date: 02/07/04

  • Next message: Keyser Soze: "Re: Characters of COLA" 
    Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:57:23 +0000 (GMT)

    In article <Okx46nC7DHA.2264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
    Jim Slager <jslager@inameU_NO_WHATcom> wrote:
    >Jupiter, thanks for the post. It seems to me that top posting makes sense
    >if you're not replying to what the previous poster said but, rather,
    >starting a new approach to the original post.

    No, for goodness sake - of course it doesn't.

    If you are not replying to what the previous poster said then you don't
    need to quote anything at all. If you do need to quote something to
    give context to your additions then put your comments immediately after
    the relevant bit. It's as simple as that.

    >But, I guess it is a matter of personal taste.

    No, it isn't. There are three ways of following up to a Usenet post
    (in order from worst to best).

    1) Quote the entirety of the previous message and tag your comments on
       the end. Doesn't really exist but is cited by the exponents of
       method 2 (below) to try to prove that their way isn't the worst
       possible way of doing it.

    2) Quote the entirety of the previous message and put your comments
       at the beginning - aka "Top posting". Wastes a phenomenal amount
       of bandwidth and obscures the flow of conversation. Also obscures
       the point of what the poster is trying to say because you can't
       tell what (if anything) their comments relate to.

    3) The correct way - quote the minimum necessary to give context to
       your comments and pair off each comment with the bit of quoted
       text to which it relates. Easy to read. Saves bandwidth. Keeps
       the flow of conversation going.

    Please try to learn.

    John 

    -- 
Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England
We had a woodhenge here once but it rotted.
  • Next message: Keyser Soze: "Re: Characters of COLA"

    Relevant Pages

    • o/t Quoting previous text, or not (was Re: Neighbor Using My Fence
      ... > Brian, unless you quote a little bit of the message you are replying to, ... > All I can tell is that you seem to be replying to either a poster named ... it seems the response is to: ...
      (misc.consumers.house)
    • Re: BBCs awful tech/mydoom coverage
      ... If you are not replying to what the previous poster said then you don't ... If you do need to quote something to ... of bandwidth and obscures the flow of conversation. ...
      (comp.unix.admin)
    • Re: BBCs awful tech/mydoom coverage
      ... If you are not replying to what the previous poster said then you don't ... If you do need to quote something to ... of bandwidth and obscures the flow of conversation. ...
      (comp.unix.solaris)
    • Re: BBCs awful tech/mydoom coverage
      ... If you are not replying to what the previous poster said then you don't ... If you do need to quote something to ... of bandwidth and obscures the flow of conversation. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
    • Re: old pentium
      ... >> replies to threads more than a week old, ... > But what if you were not the person that I were replying to? ... >> time scrolling down past the quote. ...
      (alt.os.linux)