 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What you do in those cases is to complain that they should only quote
> relevant parts of the original post, not everything.
That doesn't work though, because often new people get added to the cc- or
to-list if the subject shifts towards something they should know about. In
that case the new people need to be able to recall the previous
communication that led up the current reply. Or if someone just deleted the
old emails because it didn't really involve them, but then they needed to
reply to some comment. It's just useful to keep all the quoted text.
And besides, if the only reason to delete parts of the quoted text is so
that people don't have to scroll so far to the bottom to read the reply,
then why not just write the reply at the top?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And besides, if the only reason to delete parts of the quoted text is so
> that people don't have to scroll so far to the bottom to read the reply,
> then why not just write the reply at the top?
Because then people don't know what you are replying to.
Note that "writing after the quote" is not the same thing as
"bottom-posting" (although in some cases the result may be the same,
but not always).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Scott has a point when he talked about "Work Emails" But then that is different
from News groups IMO.
On 26 Feb 2008 07:43:47 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> And besides, if the only reason to delete parts of the quoted text is so
>> that people don't have to scroll so far to the bottom to read the reply,
>> then why not just write the reply at the top?
>
> Because then people don't know what you are replying to.
>
> Note that "writing after the quote" is not the same thing as
>"bottom-posting" (although in some cases the result may be the same,
>but not always).
Scott has a point when he talked about "Work Emails" But then that is different
from News groups IMO.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Because then people don't know what you are replying to.
Of course people know what you are replying to, and if they have forgotten
(eg a reply to an email from weeks or months ago) then they just read below
to see what the previous message was.
Just imagine this was an email conversation we were having here, and not a
newsgroup thread. You are trying to say we should post the same way in
both. Well what happens if I want to cc this reply to my friend Bob because
I know he is interested in this sort of thing and will have a comment? I
will have to forward him a large number of different emails so that he can
try and piece together the chain of events that led to the quote above.
The alternative is that we just leave all the replies underneath and write a
reply at the top. It's easy for everyone as they only need to read the
first reply (or scroll down one or two pages if they have forgotten what's
going on), but the beauty is that if I want to forward it to Bob, I just hit
forward and add "Bob, see the emails below for details", and he instantly
has the entire conversation. Ditto if I want to cc him in on one reply, and
then he can hit reply and add his comments too.
This is how email works in business, it just wouldn't work if you tried to
do it like usenet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escribió:
> 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.
People top-post in email due to the stupid email clients they use, which
put the cursor on the beginning of the message.
It's even more stupid when they put the cursor at the beginning, and add
the signature at the end (yep, *after* the quoted messages).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > Because then people don't know what you are replying to.
> Of course people know what you are replying to, and if they have forgotten
> (eg a reply to an email from weeks or months ago) then they just read below
> to see what the previous message was.
And if in the typical top-posting style the quote below is 50 pages long,
they can easily find the single line to which this poster is replying to.
Somehow you assume that all quotes are short and quick to read.
> Just imagine this was an email conversation we were having here, and not a
> newsgroup thread. You are trying to say we should post the same way in
> both. Well what happens if I want to cc this reply to my friend Bob because
> I know he is interested in this sort of thing and will have a comment? I
> will have to forward him a large number of different emails so that he can
> try and piece together the chain of events that led to the quote above.
And he would have to read the entire thread in reverse order, from bottom
to top, which is exactly what the signature I quoted criticizes. You are
just proving my point.
> but the beauty is that if I want to forward it to Bob, I just hit
> forward and add "Bob, see the emails below for details", and he instantly
> has the entire conversation.
In reverse order, which is exactly opposite to the natural order in
which people read. The point of that signature exactly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Of course people know what you are replying to, and if they have
>> forgotten
>> (eg a reply to an email from weeks or months ago) then they just read
>> below
>> to see what the previous message was.
>
> And if in the typical top-posting style the quote below is 50 pages long,
> they can easily find the single line to which this poster is replying to.
I don't know any emails we have here that are 50 pages long. If it's longer
than a paragraph or two it's usually too importnant for an email and better
explained and archived in a word or powerpoint document. And the subject
being discussed/replied to is in the subject line. Unlike newsgroup posts,
email conversations don't usually go off-topic from when they started.
> And he would have to read the entire thread in reverse order, from bottom
> to top, which is exactly what the signature I quoted criticizes. You are
> just proving my point.
But that is a minor occurance compared to everyone else who reads every
email. Why force everyone else to follow an awkward process for every
email, just so that Bob can read the history in top-to-bottom order, should
he wish to do so?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
>
> Now all those using M$ OE have no excuse for top posting any more :-)
>
> John
>
For all those who are arguing about whether its good or bad to top post,
I quote RFC1855:
> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
> enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
> sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
> Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
> postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
> response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
> helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
If you don't know what an RFC is, tough ;-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:56:35 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>If you don't know what an RFC is, tough ;-)
Remote Function Call?
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:56:35 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> If you don't know what an RFC is, tough ;-)
>
> Remote Function Call?
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I trust that was irony
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > And if in the typical top-posting style the quote below is 50 pages long,
> > they can easily find the single line to which this poster is replying to.
> I don't know any emails we have here that are 50 pages long. If it's longer
> than a paragraph or two it's usually too importnant for an email and better
> explained and archived in a word or powerpoint document.
Not one single email, but the email plus the 100 previous emails which
are being bottom-quoted in the single email.
> But that is a minor occurance compared to everyone else who reads every
> email. Why force everyone else to follow an awkward process for every
> email, just so that Bob can read the history in top-to-bottom order, should
> he wish to do so?
Awkward? How hard is it to press the "end" key in the keyboard?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:11:53 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> Remote Function Call?
>>
>
>I trust that was irony
Never put your trust in …
Actually RFCnnnn (Remote Function Call nnnn) are used extensively in my job so
it is the first thing that came to mind. :)
The second thing was to Google it but that's not funny and I live near Andrew
(It must be catching) :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:11:53 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Remote Function Call?
>>>
>> I trust that was irony
>
> Never put your trust in …
>
> Actually RFCnnnn (Remote Function Call nnnn) are used extensively in my job so
> it is the first thing that came to mind. :)
> The second thing was to Google it but that's not funny and I live near Andrew
> (It must be catching) :)
Ok, then, Request For Comments (Internet Standards mean anything? :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:34:21 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Ok, then, Request For Comments (Internet Standards mean anything? :-)
It does now :)
But RTS/CTS means more to me :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But that is a minor occurance compared to everyone else who reads every
>> email. Why force everyone else to follow an awkward process for every
>> email, just so that Bob can read the history in top-to-bottom order,
>> should
>> he wish to do so?
>
> Awkward? How hard is it to press the "end" key in the keyboard?
Once is fine - doing it every single time you want to see a reply to an
email gets extremely annoying (try 500x per day).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > Awkward? How hard is it to press the "end" key in the keyboard?
> Once is fine - doing it every single time you want to see a reply to an
> email gets extremely annoying (try 500x per day).
I really can't see any problem.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Once is fine - doing it every single time you want to see a reply to an
>> email gets extremely annoying (try 500x per day).
>
> I really can't see any problem.
I guess fortunately you don't spend a large proportion of your time reading
through emails then...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> But RTS/CTS means more to me :)
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Ah! Now I understand. You're using 802.11 too
John
CTS :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:38:12 +0000, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>>
>> But RTS/CTS means more to me :)
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>Ah! Now I understand. You're using 802.11 too
>
>John
>
>CTS :-)
RxD :)
Sorry RS232 :-)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
