Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver. I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
The information contained in this e-mail including any attachments may constitute Corvis Equipment Corporation Proprietary Information that is subject to Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed to any other party without the express consent of Corvis Corporation.
If you are neither the intended recipient of this e-mail nor responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, note that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or retention of this e-mail is prohibited.
If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we request that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any return email immediately.
Hi,
Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver.
It isn't. Imagine a situation where you have two (or more) questions with similar but different answers. Top post the answer and you don't know what is being referred to which leads to wide scale confusion. Top posting is NEVER a timesaver. Do you answer the phone by answering a point or question before you've heard what is being asked?
I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
Some people also like email signatures which follow "-- ". Seems your email client is somewhat broken - like the argument for top-posting.
TTFN
Paul
Am Di, den 29.03.2005 schrieb Crisler, Jon um 1:29:
Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver. I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
No, the contrary is true. Even top-posting in 99% of the cases mean that quotes are not stripped and the link between the new contribution and the quoted material is not clear. It mostly takes much time to find out. Anyway that has been discussed to extend.
Alexander
P.S. Btw. your disclaimer is pointless for a public mailing list.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:29:07 -0500, Crisler, Jon JCrisler@corvis.com wrote:
Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver. I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
Actually it is more commonly accepted that narrowing down the original message to only the relevant information, and then FOLLOWING that information with the new post is considered proper etiquette when participating in conversations on new groups.
That being said, there are going to be people who top-post, and because of those people, there are going to be other people who will simply ignore them.
The information contained in this e-mail including any attachments may constitute Corvis Equipment Corporation Proprietary Information that is subject to Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed to any other party without the express consent of Corvis Corporation.
If you are neither the intended recipient of this e-mail nor responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, note that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or retention of this e-mail is prohibited.
If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we request that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any return email immediately.
Funny, your disclaimer is longer than your message... and doesn't seem to make much sense. Also mail signatures should be separated from the original message.
David Hoffman wrote:
Funny, your disclaimer is longer than your message... and doesn't seem to make much sense. Also mail signatures should be separated from the original message.
Just out of curiosity, but aren't signatures supposed to have a double dash (--) as the first line? Where did I read that... (in Mozilla the signature gets a lighter color compared to the rest of the text, so you know it's a signature, and not part of the message.) Just wondering.
On Mar 28, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Just out of curiosity, but aren't signatures supposed to have a double dash (--) as the first line?
It's a double dash and a space (-- ) on a line by itself.
Patrick McSwiggen wrote:
It's a double dash and a space (-- ) on a line by itself.
So I was close. But now, where does that have an effect? On what? Or maybe, FOR what? And would one put the double dash-space before or after a disclaimer (but before their signature)? (Mind you, I can't stand those disclaimers that can compete with a novel.)
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 18:34 -0700, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Patrick McSwiggen wrote:
It's a double dash and a space (-- ) on a line by itself.
So I was close. But now, where does that have an effect? On what?Or maybe, FOR what? And would one put the double dash-space before or after a disclaimer (but before their signature)? (Mind you, I can't stand those disclaimers that can compete with a novel.)
One place it has an effect is with email clients and some mailing list servers that are smart enough to truncate signatures in replies, forwards, and list emails.
As for the disclaimers, my opinion is that they are worthless. By the time you get to them, you've already read the email, so if there was any confidential information, you've read and processed it without reading the disclaimer. Unless the email is packed with stock market analysis or 10K reports, I'm not sure what anyone thinks is the value of a disclaimer, especially one that is more than a paragraph...
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:29:07PM -0500, Crisler, Jon wrote:
Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver.
Just in case this isn't a troll...
A time-savaer for whom? It's worth a few seconds of YOUR time in the interest of not wasting time for everyone else reading the list.
I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
Rather it's the convention to both trim the original message down AND reply below the quoted text. When everyone follows their personal preference, things get even messier. When everyone follows the convention, threads are much easier to follow and (see above) all the thoustands of people reading the list don't have to waste time hunting through extra quoted material to figure out the context.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:32:38PM -0500, Aaron Gaudio wrote:
As for the disclaimers, my opinion is that they are worthless.
I always send people this link. It has a pretty good explanation of why these things are mostly worthless. To be fair many people are forced to include them (or even have them added later by their company's MTA).
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
/w
One more lash to this dead horse..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
With some fine examples of why top-posting is a 'bad thing'
Gee whiz, I just opened my email and there is another exciting and technically mind blowing thread on top-posting with 21 entries so far! [Hey, I know! After this let's talk about what the 'best' distribution is!] :)
Allow me to top post this response out of sheer frustration, and in protest of the topic. Another one for the bit bucket...
Marc (who usually bottom posts despite gmail's irritating formatting)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:29:06 -0800, Jerry Gaiser jerryg@gaiser.org wrote:
One more lash to this dead horse..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
With some fine examples of why top-posting is a 'bad thing'
-- Jerry Gaiser in North Plains, Oregon USA (Zone8a) - 45.6933N 123.0418W
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
What baffles me is the fact that this list prefers bottom posting. People know this, yet they insist on top posting because that's what they want to do. They know it's bad ettiquette, yet continue to do so.
When I was first informed that bottom posting is the way to interact with email and lists, that's what I do because thats what is preferred. Even though gmail defaults to top posting, I know how to run the mouse well enough to highlight the parts of the message I don't want, and then put the cursor at the bottom and begin typing.
Maybe I'd like to drive on the left side of the road like they do in England, but you can't do it in Canada or the US. Maybe some of the top posters could try their influence on that.
Thom Paine wrote:
What baffles me is the fact that this list prefers bottom posting. People know this, yet they insist on top posting because that's what they want to do. They know it's bad ettiquette, yet continue to do so.
When I was first informed that bottom posting is the way to interact with email and lists, that's what I do because thats what is preferred. Even though gmail defaults to top posting, I know how to run the mouse well enough to highlight the parts of the message I don't want, and then put the cursor at the bottom and begin typing.
Maybe I'd like to drive on the left side of the road like they do in England, but you can't do it in Canada or the US. Maybe some of the top posters could try their influence on that.
Don't forget that a lot of the posters are used to that POS virus known as Outlook, and it defaults to top-posting as well.
Gang, bottom posting has been the standard since Usenet was invented. Hell, I still have an ARPA address and looking back at the archives shows that we've ALWAYS used bottom posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens@vitalstream.com - - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com - - - - Microsoft Outlook: If it ain't a virus, it sure is a carrier! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:55, Rick Stevens wrote:
Don't forget that a lot of the posters are used to that POS virus known as Outlook, and it defaults to top-posting as well.
Outlook, like any other mail editor, allows you to position your cursor wherever you like before typing... However people on business email distribution lists tend to prefer top posting because the responses come quickly enough that the previous one isn't forgotten and everyone wants the complete conversation log intact instead of just the snippet that this message addresses.
Gang, bottom posting has been the standard since Usenet was invented. Hell, I still have an ARPA address and looking back at the archives shows that we've ALWAYS used bottom posting.
Internet mailing lists have different objectives. People tend to imitate what they've seen first. Not everyone was at a university during the ARPA days...
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:18:47 -0600, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:55, Rick Stevens wrote:
Don't forget that a lot of the posters are used to that POS virus known as Outlook, and it defaults to top-posting as well.
Outlook, like any other mail editor, allows you to position your cursor wherever you like before typing... However people on business email distribution lists tend to prefer top posting because the responses come quickly enough that the previous one isn't forgotten and everyone wants the complete conversation log intact instead of just the snippet that this message addresses.
Gang, bottom posting has been the standard since Usenet was invented. Hell, I still have an ARPA address and looking back at the archives shows that we've ALWAYS used bottom posting.
Internet mailing lists have different objectives. People tend to imitate what they've seen first. Not everyone was at a university during the ARPA days...
-- Les Mikesell les@futuresource.com
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
jeezus, can we just start two lists for every fedora-related topic? one list will be for clueful people who don't top post, who don't post in HTML, who properly trim their posts and who don't have 30-line idiotic, company-mandated sigs whose only purpose is to justify their corporate lawyers' existence.
the other list will be for the annoying, clueless twits who think linux mailing list behaviour should be mandated by what freakin' outlook does.
rday
Isn't "top posting" something that they do in those scary specialty clubs in San Francisco?
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
jeezus, can we just start two lists for every fedora-related topic? one list will be for clueful people who don't top post, who don't post in HTML, who properly trim their posts and who don't have 30-line idiotic, company-mandated sigs whose only purpose is to justify their corporate lawyers' existence.
the other list will be for the annoying, clueless twits who think linux mailing list behaviour should be mandated by what freakin' outlook does.
One of the nice things about Mutt is that I can (with procmail support):
* set up rules to catch HTML-only posts;
* set up rules for subjects I'm unlikely to know much about (e.g. wireless);
* set up rules for people who are obnoxious or clue-resistant (e.g. being a troll, unwarranted insults, or continuing to defend top-posting[1]);
* set up rules to catch out-of-office messages;
* and set up rules to catch a couple of other problems.
and "score" them down appropriately.
On the other hand, I can score up Red Hat employees, other bright sparks, and threads that are likely to be interesting or where I can help.
Then I can sort threads by the score of whoever started a thread, and colour the index lines according to the score of a post. [2]
It gets me pretty close to what Robert describes.
James.
[1] This thread has been a great source of targets!
[2] (If a post gets scored low enough, it gets automatically read. This normally only happens if you post only in HTML on a subject I'm not interested in, if you're on my twit-list and post only in HTML, or if you *really* break the rules).
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 15:53, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
jeezus, can we just start two lists for every fedora-related topic? one list will be for clueful people who don't top post, who don't post in HTML, who properly trim their posts and who don't have 30-line idiotic, company-mandated sigs whose only purpose is to justify their corporate lawyers' existence.
the other list will be for the annoying, clueless twits who think linux mailing list behaviour should be mandated by what freakin' outlook does.
rday
Finally, a solution to the problem that might actually work. ;-)
Unforch, the mail server would have to translate the To: address according to whether or not the message contained top-posting I'd think, because we'ed otherwise fail at convincing said twits to use the right list.
That shouldn't be too hard to code up in a bash script I'd think.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:04:28 -0500, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 15:53, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
jeezus, can we just start two lists for every fedora-related topic? one list will be for clueful people who don't top post, who don't post in HTML, who properly trim their posts and who don't have 30-line idiotic, company-mandated sigs whose only purpose is to justify their corporate lawyers' existence.
the other list will be for the annoying, clueless twits who think linux mailing list behaviour should be mandated by what freakin' outlook does.
rday
Finally, a solution to the problem that might actually work. ;-)
Unforch, the mail server would have to translate the To: address according to whether or not the message contained top-posting I'd think, because we'ed otherwise fail at convincing said twits to use the right list.
That shouldn't be too hard to code up in a bash script I'd think.
Better yet: instead of creating a second list, return the top-posted/html e-mail to the sender (refusing to distribute) and explaining the reason why.
Is it REALLY a possible thing to do? That would save a lot of time and bandwidth!
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:28 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:04:28 -0500, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 15:53, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
jeezus, can we just start two lists for every fedora-related topic? one list will be for clueful people who don't top post, who don't post in HTML, who properly trim their posts and who don't have 30-line idiotic, company-mandated sigs whose only purpose is to justify their corporate lawyers' existence.
the other list will be for the annoying, clueless twits who think linux mailing list behaviour should be mandated by what freakin' outlook does.
rday
Finally, a solution to the problem that might actually work. ;-)
Unforch, the mail server would have to translate the To: address according to whether or not the message contained top-posting I'd think, because we'ed otherwise fail at convincing said twits to use the right list.
That shouldn't be too hard to code up in a bash script I'd think.
Better yet: instead of creating a second list, return the top-posted/html e-mail to the sender (refusing to distribute) and explaining the reason why.
Is it REALLY a possible thing to do? That would save a lot of time and bandwidth!
---- I seem to recall you being the instigator of a set of 'rules' which apparently seems to empower some to brow beat others that don't follow your unofficial rules.
yes, there has been a lot of bandwidth expended on this topic - the natural result is that nothing gets resolved.
Craig
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:05:16 -0700, Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:28 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
Is it REALLY a possible thing to do? That would save a lot of time and bandwidth!
I seem to recall you being the instigator of a set of 'rules' which apparently seems to empower some to brow beat others that don't follow your unofficial rules.
I beg your pardon? Is this how you see an effort to create a set of written guidelines so that we can all participate here in a civilized manner? I have to remind you that:
1. "The Rules" to which you refer are recent. They have just been drafted and are still being developed. The list behaviour about top posting, html, etc was already there long before the idea of the rules came around;
2. "The Rules" were *not* designed to ba a weapon. They are just a written statement of a consensus, extensively enough discussed here.
3. You seem to have got the opposite idea of we try to show. The idea is actually to come to a point where everyone will be presented with the rules at some point, preferably before theyr first post to the list, so as to *avoid* this kind of beating / flaming / waste of bandwidht.
4. Yes, the rulas are "unofficial" in the sense that they are not sponsored by Red Hat. However, let me remind you that I did not create them myself. Rather, they are a result of a long discussion on this list, where *everyone* had the chance to contribute. So, it can safely be said that it reflects the opinion of the majority on this list. In the "community" sense, IMHO, this is as official as anything can get.
I hope that can clarify the point a bit better. For more details, take a look at: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~seabra/linux/FedoraRules.html
yes, there has been a lot of bandwidth expended on this topic - the natural result is that nothing gets resolved.
I agree. That's why we created the guidelines, so that when such issue appears, we can just point someone to the proper link with the explanations, /and move on/.
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:43 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote: ---- no problem - just thought that I would mention it.
I think I have decided to always top post from now on just thinking that it will aggravate David Curry to do it is good enough reason I think.
hmmm...have to think about this
Craig ----
yes, there has been a lot of bandwidth expended on this topic - the natural result is that nothing gets resolved.
I agree. That's why we created the guidelines, so that when such issue appears, we can just point someone to the proper link with the explanations, /and move on/.
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:43 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
no problem - just thought that I would mention it.
I think I have decided to always top post from now on just thinking that it will aggravate David Curry to do it is good enough reason I think.
:-) Looks like you are pretty clueless, Craig. I don't really give a twit how people compose their responses to list messages. What aggravates me is the total disregard some people show for the true fedora linux experts like Alexander Dalloz, Paul Howarth and several others who so generously grant the benefit of their expertise to newcomers and long-time linux users alike.
Disregarding the message composition preferences of Alexander, Paul, et al makes it harder for them to be helpful to others, takes up more of their time to read & pare, adds to their work burden, and may well result in reducing the number of people who benefit from their expertise. Refusal to respect their simple requests is an outright affront and denal of simple human courtesy where it is very much deserved.
Given the prevalence this week of message threads with "top posting" in the title, and the numbers of other messages containing requests for people to avoid top posting, I see little to no credibility in claims by several posters that as newbies they were/are unaware of the list convention regarding top posting.
hmmm...have to think about this
Craig
Feel free to follow thru on your top posting idea, Craig. Perhaps I am the only person on the list that perceives such an action as an affront to those making substantial contributions to the fedora community.
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:25 -0500, David Curry wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:43 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
no problem - just thought that I would mention it.
I think I have decided to always top post from now on just thinking that it will aggravate David Curry to do it is good enough reason I think.
:-) Looks like you are pretty clueless, Craig.
On the contrary, Craig is clearly one of the most knowledgeable and clueful posters on the list, as anyone that has been here for more than a week or two should know.
I don't really give a twit how people compose their responses to list messages. What aggravates me is the total disregard some people show for the true fedora linux experts like Alexander Dalloz, Paul Howarth and several others who so generously grant the benefit of their expertise to newcomers and long-time linux users alike.
Disregarding the message composition preferences of Alexander, Paul, et al makes it harder for them to be helpful to others, takes up more of their time to read & pare, adds to their work burden, and may well result in reducing the number of people who benefit from their expertise. Refusal to respect their simple requests is an outright affront and denal of simple human courtesy where it is very much deserved.
I regard top-posting as a minor annoyance. The reasons are well documented by now. However, I regard as *extremely irritating* those posts that:
(a) include name-calling, and/or (b) address *only* the top-posting/HTML *style* of the post that they are a reply to, without actually dealing with the *content* of the post, i.e. trying to help the OP with the problem they are having.
Since the latter of these is clearly not something that bothers you, and your email to Frank was a fine example of the former, I'd really appreciate it if you could leave my name out of any defences you might be making of such posts.
Given the prevalence this week of message threads with "top posting" in the title, and the numbers of other messages containing requests for people to avoid top posting, I see little to no credibility in claims by several posters that as newbies they were/are unaware of the list convention regarding top posting.
They'll certainly be aware now, but it seems that this "discussion" will have to come up every month or so in order to educate the latest batch of newbies to join the list, which is unfortunate.
Feel free to follow thru on your top posting idea, Craig. Perhaps I am the only person on the list that perceives such an action as an affront to those making substantial contributions to the fedora community.
Or perhaps you didn't realise he was joking (I hope!)?
Paul.
Note: This message is primarily directed to Paul Howarth who has noted from time to time that he prefers for responses to his fedora-list messages to be directed back to the list rather than to him directly.
Paul Howarth wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:25 -0500, David Curry wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 13:43 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
no problem - just thought that I would mention it.
I think I have decided to always top post from now on just thinking that it will aggravate David Curry to do it is good enough reason I think.
:-) Looks like you are pretty clueless, Craig.
On the contrary, Craig is clearly one of the most knowledgeable and clueful posters on the list, as anyone that has been here for more than a week or two should know.
Like you, Paul, Craig is "clearly one of the most knowledgeable" posters on the list regarding fedora linux and probably Windows as well. But, the context of the message Craig posted did not pertain to linux or windows. Rather, it was limited to top posting and his perception of my views on the practice. Within context of the message, he was indeed clueless as demonstrated by his words.
I don't really give a twit how people compose their responses to list messages. What aggravates me is the total disregard some people show for the true fedora linux experts like Alexander Dalloz, Paul Howarth and several others who so generously grant the benefit of their expertise to newcomers and long-time linux users alike.
Disregarding the message composition preferences of Alexander, Paul, et al makes it harder for them to be helpful to others, takes up more of their time to read & pare, adds to their work burden, and may well result in reducing the number of people who benefit from their expertise. Refusal to respect their simple requests is an outright affront and denal of simple human courtesy where it is very much deserved.
I regard top-posting as a minor annoyance. The reasons are well documented by now. However, I regard as *extremely irritating* those
No offense or aggravation to you is intended. This is a matter on which we clearly disagree though.
posts that:
(a) include name-calling, and/or (b) address *only* the top-posting/HTML *style* of the post that they are a reply to, without actually dealing with the *content* of the post, i.e. trying to help the OP with the problem they are having.
Since the latter of these is clearly not something that bothers you, and your email to Frank was a fine example of the former,
Keep the record straight, Paul! I do not believe that I have ever posted an email to fedora-list that included any name calling. If you find one, please bring it to my attention!
The "email to Frank" that you refer to must be the message I sent to Frank Stratton privately, off list and was not -- repeat -- not directed to fedora-list. Mr. Stratton directed a message to fedora-list that quoted my message (or parts of it) proclaiming name-calling. The operable phrase that he reacted to claiming name-calling was, "... act tells me that you are either incredibly inept socially or a world class TURD." I presented two alternatives to Mr. Stratton and he self selected the alternative most appropriate to himself.
I'd really appreciate it if you could leave my name out of any defences you might be making of such posts.
As you wish. Whether you (or Alexander for that matter) agree with my views, rationale(s), or choice of styles for pursuing an anti-top posting campaign is immaterial. I have pursued the issue because I believe it is the right thing to do and I alone am responsible.
Given the prevalence this week of message threads with "top posting" in the title, and the numbers of other messages containing requests for people to avoid top posting, I see little to no credibility in claims by several posters that as newbies they were/are unaware of the list convention regarding top posting.
They'll certainly be aware now, but it seems that this "discussion" will have to come up every month or so in order to educate the latest batch of newbies to join the list, which is unfortunate.
Unfortunate, but realistic as a high proportion of those newbies will invariably be migrants from Windows and Windows software.
Feel free to follow thru on your top posting idea, Craig. Perhaps I am the only person on the list that perceives such an action as an affront to those making substantial contributions to the fedora community.
Or perhaps you didn't realise he was joking (I hope!)?
Paul.
It occurred to me that Craig was either joking or simply trying to needle/aggravate me. His objective was less significant to me, though, than the opportunity his message presented to conclude the current "Top Posting" thread on a positive note.
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:48 -0500, David Curry wrote:
It occurred to me that Craig was either joking or simply trying to needle/aggravate me. His objective was less significant to me, though, than the opportunity his message presented to conclude the current "Top Posting" thread on a positive note.
---- Regardless of what occurs to you there are these facts...
NO amount of badgering is gonna stop people from top posting.
If you don't like it - delete it - move on
If you find it awkward to reply to a reply which was top posted, move it to the bottom, reply on the top, reply on the bottom or just delete it and move on.
Alexander doesn't need you to defend him - he's quite capable.
None of us really wishes to endure this unending and unsolvable problem, you aren't gonna stop people from top posting replies and if one or two requests don't get the person to change their habit, it's not desirable to beat them up for it - the badgering is far worse than the transgression of top posting.
I don't top post.
I do move top posted replies to the bottom before I put in my reply.
I don't see the point of all of this wasted angst, energy, hostility over the subject.
If I can annoy you or anyone else by top posting, I am tempted to do that - yes, to needle/aggravate as your advocacy for bottom posting is entirely over the top.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:48 -0500, David Curry wrote:
It occurred to me that Craig was either joking or simply trying to needle/aggravate me. His objective was less significant to me, though, than the opportunity his message presented to conclude the current "Top Posting" thread on a positive note.
Regardless of what occurs to you there are these facts...
NO amount of badgering is gonna stop people from top posting.
If you don't like it - delete it - move on
If you find it awkward to reply to a reply which was top posted, move it to the bottom, reply on the top, reply on the bottom or just delete it and move on.
Alexander doesn't need you to defend him - he's quite capable.
It never occurred to me that he needed defending or that he is not "quite capable."
None of us really wishes to endure this unending and unsolvable problem, you aren't gonna stop people from top posting replies and if one or two requests don't get the person to change their habit, it's not desirable to beat them up for it - the badgering is far worse than the transgression of top posting.
To you, it seems to be.
I don't top post.
I do move top posted replies to the bottom before I put in my reply.
I don't see the point of all of this wasted angst, energy, hostility over the subject.
If I can annoy you or anyone else by top posting, I am tempted to do that - yes, to needle/aggravate as your advocacy for bottom posting is entirely over the top.
Craig
Have you considered taking your own advice, Craig? That is,
If you don't like it - delete it - move on
I'll definitely consider some of your suggestions, but stopping commentary on list conventions is not among them. We clearly disagree on some issues. You might want to consider just filtering all messages to the list from me into electronic oblivion. If you really feel as you say, I'm surprised that you have continued to read any of the messages I post. Have a masochistic streak?
Have stronger things you would like to say to me privately? Feel free to do so.
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:48 -0500, David Curry wrote:
The "email to Frank" that you refer to must be the message I sent to Frank Stratton privately, off list and was not -- repeat -- not directed to fedora-list. Mr. Stratton directed a message to fedora-list that quoted my message (or parts of it) proclaiming name-calling. The operable phrase that he reacted to claiming name-calling was, "... act tells me that you are either incredibly inept socially or a world class TURD." I presented two alternatives to Mr. Stratton and he self selected the alternative most appropriate to himself.
---- personally, I think the private email approach is really bad form and I definitely resent it when someone does top me as you did to Frank (send a private email). This is after all a public forum and the private email is an intrusion into private space.
In my mind, there is no substantive difference between outright calling them a name or giving them a Hobson choice and suggesting that they picked the reference. This is just plain ignorant and arrogant. I surely don't see any sensitivity coming from your keyboard.
Not that I expect that my view of your behavior is going to change it, but I could only hope that you might eventually see that you are over reaching and over reacting.
Craig
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:41:49 -0500, Phil Labonte plabonte@gmail.com wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
Take *careful* note of the words "since it BREAKS DOWN the flow of the thread" (emphasis mine).
I think that says a lot more than "OLDER DEFINITIONS".
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Gmail is no excuse!! I'm using gmail right now and it perfectly enables me to do bottom posting and proper trimming. When you click reply gmail puts two blank lines at the top of the email along with placing your cursor at the very top. All a person has to do is press the delete key twice and move their cursor down to where they want to start.
Gmail *also* (and I think this is the most important part) doesn't create rediculous reply headers like Outlook does (and in fact Outlook users can get an addon for free called Outlook QuoteFix which I use at work), further enabling a user to properly bottom post.
Chris.
Hi,
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
You mean one piece of software which has been admitted by the company it came from as being broken and that they won't fix it and something which is just broken anyway?
I will change, but only to something which makes sense and allows for intelligent conversation. I don't consider answering something before it has been asked or trying to put together a mailing in the correct order as a being a constructive use of time.
TTFN
Paul
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:41:49PM -0500, Phil Labonte wrote:
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Top posting is used only by a minority of people in this list. It is not used AT ALL in the Linux Kernel mailing list and that holds true for almost all of in the many many email lists supported by RedHat, ditto for Sourceforge.
In general the only email lists where top posting is considered OK are non-technical lists, or lists where the majority of users are clueless newbies and AOL users.
Given all the fuss, you might consider trying to understand why the standard of appropriate quoting evolved. Here are some hints: #1 - complex and lengthy technical discussion #2 - Store and forward email is not a real time application #3 - immediacy of context #4 - the time of the many is more valuable than the time of the few.
This is covered in the IETF Engineering documents:
See RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines, section 3, "One-to-Many Communication":
"- 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."
Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Then feel free to look for fedora support on a mail-list that accepts your preferred etiquette.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Curry wrote:
Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Then feel free to look for fedora support on a mail-list that accepts your preferred etiquette.
This is an old thread, rather pointless, when one doesnt have a netiquette guide to show a new user. And i tend to agree, grow up, this is 2005, that guide is over 15 years old, and html will NEVER go away. People need to get with the curve, html is neither evil nor bad, and using it is absolutely proper. If a list has specific RULES, then they need to be posted where others can see it and choose to abide or not. The recipients DONT have to read it if they choose not to, but to tell someone to bugger off because you have to spend an extra 2 moments formatting YOUR response back to the user, is really YOUR issue, not the initial poster's.
Can we PLEASE KILL THIS THREAD - this is a loosing argument, when both sides have proper and valid arguments.
Get over it, and get back to the issues at hand - HELPING USERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
Just my two pesos Michael Weiner - -- Darwin Kernel Version 7.8.0: root:xnu/xnu-517.11.1.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Load Averages: 5.70 5.54 5.69 CPU Usage: 70.8% user 29.2% sys 0.0% idle Memory Usage: 109M wired 598M active 301M inactive 1009M used 14.6M free - -=- This AutoSig was generated on 03/29/2005 at 18:36. -=-
Michael Weiner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Curry wrote:
Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Then feel free to look for fedora support on a mail-list that accepts your preferred etiquette.
This is an old thread, rather pointless,
Hardly. It's point is to communicate
when one doesnt have a netiquette guide to show a new user. And i tend to agree, grow up,
When are you going to implement that advice?
this is 2005, that guide is over 15 years old,
So? Its longevity speaks volumes about its functionality.
and html will NEVER go away. People need to get with the curve, html is neither evil nor bad, and using it is absolutely proper. If a list has specific RULES, then they need to be posted where others can see it and choose to abide or not. The recipients DONT have to read it if they choose not to, but to tell someone to bugger off because you have to spend an extra 2 moments formatting YOUR response back to the user,
ALL time donated by the fedora experts on this list in trying to help others is an outright gift to not only the questioner, but to everyone else reading the Q & A. Why should these experts spend any time WHATSOEVER on responding to a message from someone who does not have the grace (and intelligence) to try to submit their questions in a form acceptable to the expert(s) they are seeking help from. The more people who do so, the more those experts can help.
is really YOUR issue, not the initial poster's.
Can we PLEASE KILL THIS THREAD - this is a loosing argument, when both sides have proper and valid arguments.
The thread will fade away when people like you adopt and support the list conventions that have prevailed for some time.
Get over it, and get back to the issues at hand - HELPING USERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
Why don't you take your own advice to "get over it" and support list conventions that will help the experts help less knowledgeable users.
Hi,
People need to get with the curve, html is neither evil nor bad, and using it is absolutely proper.
Wrong. HTML is wrong. It is a waste of bandwidth, the vast majority of spam uses it (so many anti-spambots kill it on sight) and more over you're expecting the person at the opposite end to have an html enabled and capable email client - which is not only damned rude (why should they?) but can lead to many problems.
I have html disabled on this machine and unless it's from a very select few people, they go straight to /dev/null.
The recipients DONT have to read it if they choose not to, but to tell someone to bugger off because you have to spend an extra 2 moments formatting YOUR response back to the user, is really YOUR issue, not the initial poster's.
Wrong. If they bothered to format correctly in the first place, the extra 2 moments just vanish. See, 2 moments wasted just vanish because someone bothers to follow the guidelines. It doesn't matter how old they are, if they're good and valid, they stay.
Get over it, and get back to the issues at hand - HELPING USERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
And by informing them that their style of email is wrong, why it is wrong and more over how to correct it is not helping them how?
TTFN
Paul
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:20:42 -0500, David Curry dsccable@comcast.net wrote:
Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Then feel free to look for fedora support on a mail-list that accepts your preferred etiquette.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I wonder, How many times this Subjest will come up in the next month or so.
I will even top post this!!!! WHO CARES! Let this thread die humanely....
There are arguments for both. Personally I like top posting. Like writing a journalism article (for anyone that has ever take a journalism class) you place the most important part of the article at the top, and keep going in order of the least important information.
And then there is the argument the english should be writtten top to bottom..
Well it still is top to bottom, it just doesn't necessarily follow chronologically. For someone that has been following the thread, they do not need to read it again. But it is there, appended, in case someone else does.
Either way... WHO REALLY CARES! Is it causing you to loose sleep at nights? Wreaking havoc on the civilized world? Let it die!
My $0.02.
I wonder, How many times this Subjest will come up in the next month or so.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:15:19 -0500, David Curry dsccable@comcast.net wrote:
Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
I will even top post this!!!! WHO CARES! Let this thread die humanely....
When the top posting ceases.
C'ya all This is Bullshit I posted question at Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:06:59 -0500 Still no response But I've seen what 15-30 messages about the freaken crap bout top posting, html mail and other childish shit
i propose that we make a deal to stop the top posting thread/arguments...
the people who top post should stop, and the people who give erroneous information as answers should also stop. or else we get to have public hangings!!
any takers??
I suggest a new list... fedora-list-top-posters@redhat.com
;-)
bruce wrote:
i propose that we make a deal to stop the top posting thread/arguments...
the people who top post should stop, and the people who give erroneous information as answers should also stop. or else we get to have public hangings!!
any takers??
Good evening!
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 19:36 -0500, Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
I suggest a new list... fedora-list-top-posters@redhat.com
;-)
bruce wrote:
i propose that we make a deal to stop the top posting thread/arguments...
the people who top post should stop, and the people who give erroneous information as answers should also stop. or else we get to have public hangings!!
any takers??
Die, die, evil thread. Just die. Don't give a sigh. Just die Don't say good-bye. No more last try. Just die.
Rob
All I know is all this bottom posting is sure giving the wheel on my mouse a good workout!
Mike (Purposely top posted to save the poor wheels on mice!) ;-)
David Curry wrote:
Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
I will even top post this!!!! WHO CARES! Let this thread die humanely....
When the top posting ceases.
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 15:41 -0500, Phil Labonte wrote:
To quote the Wikipedia definition: "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Phil,
Yes, and those of us who get irritated by others who flaunt their defiance of community preferences know how to filter to the bit bucket as well. PLONK
In a community it is best to make an effort to fit in if you want to be accepted and have assistance freely given.
Gmail and lookout are hardly the standards to use for establishing the preferred posting methods.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:19:34 -0600, Jeff Vian jvian10@charter.net wrote:
It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
Phil,
Yes, and those of us who get irritated by others who flaunt their defiance of community preferences know how to filter to the bit bucket as well. PLONK
In a community it is best to make an effort to fit in if you want to be accepted and have assistance freely given.
Gmail and lookout are hardly the standards to use for establishing the preferred posting methods.
Plus, isn't it kind of lame to blame whack mail tools for being too lazy to scroll down and click?
Me -ducks!-
On Tuesday, Mar 29th 2005 at 15:41 -0500, quoth Phil Labonte:
=>To quote the Wikipedia definition: =>"Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of =>Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:" => =>It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here to =>stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook... => => =>
I'm just wondering why this is relevant to fedora?
Until someone creates a tutorial on email formatting with an exam one must pass before subscribing to this list, we are unlikely to see much consistency. To enforce it among those who managed to subscribe, modify the list server to mark up and return any posts that don't adhere to standards: "Your message to the list has been rejected for: Top posting HTML Spelling error Please correct and resubmit." Or maybe, with the excess profits from running this list we could hire a style conscious moderator.
Thanks for help with Fedora issues I didn't understand before. As long as this list caters to those who don't know everything about ..IX, newbies' lacking knowledge of experts' style preferences will probably be with us. Try not to stress.
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 00:17, Sam Williams wrote:
As long as this list caters to those who don't know everything about ..IX, newbies' lacking knowledge of experts' style preferences will probably be with us. Try not to stress.
Better yet, admit that it really is a personal preference not shared by everyone even if you can find an occasional link that describes your favorite way to do it. I started long ago to read my mail in reverse order because if an answer already exists I don't care much about the question, and if a correction to the answer exists I don't really want to see the incorrect version. By extension, reversing the content order within the message makes just as much sense.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:17:56 -0600, Sam Williams sam@mbz.org wrote:
Until someone creates a tutorial on email formatting with an exam one must pass before subscribing to this list, we are unlikely to see much consistency. To enforce it among those who managed to subscribe, modify the list server to mark up and return any posts that don't adhere to standards: "Your message to the list has been rejected for: Top posting HTML Spelling error Please correct and resubmit."
English is not the native language for many people on this list. Rejecting a post for bad spelling would not be very nice. I will not comment on the other issues.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:53:56 -0700 "Ashley M. Kirchner" ashley@pcraft.com insightfully noted:
AMK> Just out of curiosity, but aren't signatures supposed to have a AMK>double dash (--) as the first line? Where did I read that... (in AMK>Mozilla the signature gets a lighter color compared to the rest of the AMK> AMK>text, so you know it's a signature, and not part of the message.) AMK>Just wondering. =============================== Actually it's a (-- ) double dash followed by a space ;-) Best, Mike
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 18:29 -0500, Crisler, Jon wrote:
Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver. I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
The information contained in this e-mail including any attachments may constitute Corvis Equipment Corporation Proprietary Information that is subject to Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed to any other party without the express consent of Corvis Corporation.
If you are neither the intended recipient of this e-mail nor responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, note that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or retention of this e-mail is prohibited.
If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we request that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any return email immediately.
I must have received this mail in error and I am notifying you of this as requested.
Words by Crisler, Jon [Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:29:07PM -0500]:
Personally, when dealing with very active lists and following the thread, top posting is a time saver. I think this falls into the realm of personal preference, some people like it, some not....
I find it extremelly anoying and counter-productive. In the same league as disclaimers.
The information contained in this e-mail including any attachments may constitute Corvis Equipment Corporation Proprietary Information that is subject to Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed to any other party without the express consent of Corvis Corporation.
If you are neither the intended recipient of this e-mail nor responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, note that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or retention of this e-mail is prohibited.
If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we request that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any return email immediately.
Hi,
If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we request
that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any return email immediately.
Nah, more fun to keep them, put them on a website and say "look at what a bunch of arseholes company "x" is for adding a sig which is miles longer than the actual email!"
But then, I am strange!
TTFN
Paul
-
Aaron Gaudio -
Alexander Dalloz -
Ashley M. Kirchner -
barophobia -
Billy Tallis -
bruce -
Bruno Wolff III -
Craig White -
Crisler, Jon -
David Curry -
David Hoffman -
Gene Heskett -
Gerhard Magnus -
Graham Campbell -
Gustavo Seabra -
Hodgins Family -
James Wilkinson -
Jeff Kinz -
Jeff Vian -
Jerry Gaiser -
jim lawrence -
jludwig -
Johnathan Bailes -
Jose Celestino -
Les Mikesell -
Marc M -
Michael J. Pawlowsky -
Michael Scottaline -
Michael Weiner -
Patrick McSwiggen -
Paul F. Johnson -
Paul Howarth -
Phil -
Richard S. Crawford -
Rick Stevens -
Robert P. J. Day -
Sam Williams -
Scot L. Harris -
Steven W. Orr -
Thomas Paine -
William Yardley