Hey, look what I just found on the LFS pages

http://home.in.tum.de/%7Ejain/software/oe-quotefix/

Now all those using M$ OE have no excuse for top posting any more :-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Now all those using M$ OE have no excuse for top posting any more :-)

  Related to that, I like this sig someone uses:


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Now all those using M$ OE have no excuse for top posting any more :-)
> 
>   Related to that, I like this sig someone uses:
> 

LOL

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> Hey, look what I just found on the LFS pages
> 
> http://home.in.tum.de/%7Ejain/software/oe-quotefix/

Haha, nice.  I seem to recall using that back when I used OE.

It's a nice little program.  Any idea if it still works with the latest 
versions of OE, though?  The last time OE-QuoteFix was updated was over 
four years ago.

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

>  Related to that, I like this sig someone uses:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

That assumes though that you jump in half way through a thread, (or that you 
want to re-read the conversation every time you read a reply), because you 
get to see something like this with bottom-posting:

Q: What is the best thing on usenet and in e-mail?

> Q: What is the best thing on usenet and in e-mail?
A: Bottom-posting.

>> Q: What is the best thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> A: Bottom-posting.
Q: Why is it such a good thing?

>>> Q: What is the best thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>> A: Bottom-posting.
> Q: Why is it such a good thing?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

With top-posting, you can just read the top (people start reading from the 
top usually) of every post to follow the conversation.

Seems I am in the minority of usenet users - although apparently the 
majority of people who use email.  Actually it would *really* annoy me if 
all the emails I got had their replies at the bottom rather than the top.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
[snip]
> With top-posting, you can just read the top (people start reading from 
> the top usually) of every post to follow the conversation.
I don't. I just read the new lines and if I don't remember the context 
from yesterday I read the lines above.
> 
> Seems I am in the minority of usenet users - although apparently the 
> majority of people who use email.  Actually it would *really* annoy me 
> if all the emails I got had their replies at the bottom rather than the 
> top.
Interesting. I do use bottom posting, or actually in between posting, 
even in e-mails. It was only recent that some people started complaining 
about it that it confused them. They have in common that they were 
fairly recent additions to the digital world. So it might be an acquired 
taste, or there are some mail readers about that visually don't handle 
it well, I don't know. I explain that I do it because it keeps context 
and that in case if they ask more than one question it otherwise either 
gets confusing or I have to repeat the question myself to provide the 
lost context. In general they accept it (possibly as just another 
peculiarity of mine).

Anyway in pure bottom or top posting there is no need to include the 
original message, hence they should not exist.

Post a reply to this message

>> With top-posting, you can just read the top (people start reading from 
>> the top usually) of every post to follow the conversation.
> I don't. I just read the new lines and if I don't remember the context 
> from yesterday I read the lines above.

I do it the other way around, especially with emails (and newsgroups where 
top posting is common).  I read the line at the top first (which is the 
reply) and then if I forgot the context I look below.

> Interesting. I do use bottom posting, or actually in between posting, even 
> in e-mails.

I use inbetween posting occasionally in emails, but always top post 
something like "See my comments below in blue" - otherwise I just top-post 
which seems to be the norm for email.  Everyone I've seen that does email 
top-posts their reply, so it would really screw up thing if I bottom-posted, 
plus it would mean everyone would get annoyed having to scroll through 10 
messages before they got to my text.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> That assumes though that you jump in half way through a thread

  No, it assumes that you don't necessarily read a whole thread in one go,
and it also assumes that a thread may have tons of sub-threads, forming
a tree of subthreads, instead of one single chained thread.

  Besides, if you are answering to several individual points in the
original post, it would be very confusing if you wrote all the answers
at the top and then people would have to guess what are the points you
are answering to.

> With top-posting, you can just read the top (people start reading from the 
> top usually) of every post to follow the conversation.

  That would be nice if each thread would not split into several, forming
a tree instead of a chain.

> Seems I am in the minority of usenet users - although apparently the 
> majority of people who use email.  Actually it would *really* annoy me if 
> all the emails I got had their replies at the bottom rather than the top.

  Quoting *everything* and just adding text to the bottom is not much better
than top-posting. Only relevant parts should be quoted, not everything.

  I didn't quote everything. I quoted only relevant parts, and answered
to each individual point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> everyone would get annoyed having to scroll through 10 
> messages before they got to my text.

  What you do in those cases is to complain that they should only quote
relevant parts of the original post, not everything.

  This post of mine is a good example: I didn't quote everything, only
the point I'm answering to. This way nobody has to guess what I'm
answering to.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Feb 2008 04:43:28 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  I didn't quote everything. I quoted only relevant parts, and answered
>to each individual point.

Somehow I think that you are talking about a subject that is almost religious to
some people. I agree with you and as I did not want to quote all of the thread I
only quoted what I thought was the most relevant part. This is further
complicated by some people using a news reader and some the web interface which
does not split the thread into sub threads. Also some of us remember when
bandwidth was a serious problem.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message