Off topic: What is "top posting"?

Ruby
41

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:36:46AM +0900, William C. wrote:

Chad P. wrote:

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:08:36PM +0900, William C. wrote:

people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.
Speak for yourself. I assume that people should be accomodated in the
most reasonable manner possible. Ultimately, the most potentially put
out by top-posting are the blind, who (using screen readers) would end

As Jamal noted, That’s not entirely true.

For him. He’s the first blind person I’ve run across with that opinion.
Others, in the past, have provided the impression I relayed in my
message.

Wait . . . you mean that greater-than symbols as indicators of old text
(like in this email) aren’t a useful clue to you?

Sure, once I get around to processing them. On ruby-forum, they are
turned green so I can scan them quickly, but this is not the case in all
clients. In a purely text-based form, I have more difficulty mentally
parsing out stuff with a > than putting back together top posted stuff.
I’m not claiming anyone else has the same issue, but at least 1 person
does.

Didn’t you just dismiss the necessity of providing logically ordered
information by saying that “most” people have newsreaders and mail
clients that properly thread these days? Now you’re complaining that
not everyone has a mail client that color codes quoted text.

I’m using mutt. It turns quoted text green just fine. I refer you back
to your previous “most” comment.

I agree, one should follow the rules of the forum/list/group. Have I
broken them? No. I still top-post my email, though.

The question was not ‘why do people in ruby-talk’ dislike top-posting.
It was simply a question of what it is why people ‘in general’ dislike
it. And as you agreed, in general, it’s a stalemate.

I’m not aiming to anger anyone, or try to get people to break rules,
written or unwritten. The OP asked a serious question and everyone has
been giving serious answers. It just so happens that the entire
discussion is personal preference.

Understood. I tied it into ruby-talk/comp.lang.ruby because the
question, it seemed to me, was asked in reference to this list.

42

Chad P. wrote:

. . . though I prefer the mailing list version, personally, and that’s
what I’m using.

I’m not sure you can view either as “primary.” The mailing
list came first, but the newsgroup is publicly postable
without signing up (a mixed blessing, of course).

And the gateway doesn’t always work (and hasn’t always
been there, although it dates to early in c.l.r history).

Hal

43

Chad P. wrote:

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:08:36PM +0900, William C. wrote:

people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.
Speak for yourself. I assume that people should be accomodated in the
most reasonable manner possible. Ultimately, the most potentially put
out by top-posting are the blind, who (using screen readers) would end

As Jamal noted, That’s not entirely true.

Wait . . . you mean that greater-than symbols as indicators of old text
(like in this email) aren’t a useful clue to you?

Sure, once I get around to processing them. On ruby-forum, they are
turned green so I can scan them quickly, but this is not the case in all
clients. In a purely text-based form, I have more difficulty mentally
parsing out stuff with a > than putting back together top posted stuff.
I’m not claiming anyone else has the same issue, but at least 1 person
does.

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don’t like, or I don’t like. That’s just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

Read the rules set forth for ruby-talk. It may be sort of a stalemate
in general, but one should make an effort to follow the conventions of
the list/forum/whatever being used, even when arguing about top-posting
there.

I agree, one should follow the rules of the forum/list/group. Have I
broken them? No. I still top-post my email, though.

The question was not ‘why do people in ruby-talk’ dislike top-posting.
It was simply a question of what it is why people ‘in general’ dislike
it. And as you agreed, in general, it’s a stalemate.

I’m not aiming to anger anyone, or try to get people to break rules,
written or unwritten. The OP asked a serious question and everyone has
been giving serious answers. It just so happens that the entire
discussion is personal preference.

44

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:45:02AM +0900, David V. wrote:

clients that can’t recognize the XML format would show it as such, and
while YMMV, I’m very, very loathe to reading XML.

In addition, I actually use plaintext-only mail reading as a “security”
feature, re: both email viruses and spam.

45

William C. wrote:

I’m not aiming to anger anyone, or try to get people to break rules,
written or unwritten. The OP asked a serious question and everyone has
been giving serious answers. It just so happens that the entire
discussion is personal preference.

I’ve had this discussion with other people on other lists. I’ve been
surprised at the vitriol it can inspire (largely, in my experience, from
those who dislike being asked not to top post; apparently it is
physically painful to avoid top posting when using Web-based list
readers ).

What struck me as interesting was that many people have told me that if
I dislike top posting, then tough titties. But, hey, that works out
fine. If I cannot quickly and easily parse a message, I skip it and
move on. Less work for James is always a good thing.

So the real issue may be that if you are trying to communicate with
others, and are looking for a thoughtful response, should you not try to
make it easier for the reader?

This doesn’t say whether any given reader will find top posting easier
or harder to parse, but I’ll bet that on this list most questions come
from top posters, and most answers come from those who use inline
responses.

–
James B.

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - The Journal By & For Rubyists
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff

46

I promised myself I wouldn’t reply to anything on this very divisive
thread,
but I’ll give it one more shot.

On 9/1/06, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

or three previous messages – which gets rather ugly and difficult to
…and one other comment about having to “open” emails many times…

Look, if you don’t have a mail client that lets you have a couple
emails open, that’s your own choice. There are these things called
“windows”
and “multitasking” that allow you to have multiple “windows” of content
in
them available at the same time. In fact, I hear you can even have them
all
on the same screen. I know plenty of people who refuse to use anything
but
pine or elm or mutt and then complain about people who don’t bend over
backwards accomodating their archaic choice of UI. Again, it’s not my
problem that “graph icks” are something you choose to avoid. Most do
not.

Seriously though, I use GMail, and as other posters have commented, the
threading and handling of quoted text is really superb. If I want
context
for a message…ANY message, including top-posted or inlined or bottomed
or
lefted or righted, I have the entire thread present at a click. It
presents
emails in the “preferred” direction–top to bottom–and I don’t delete
email
(nor have I ever deleted email I read or intend to read). Given the fact
that tools exist to allow me to 1. hit reply 2. type 3. send, it becomes
a
much larger chore for me to drag along outdated conventions based on
80x25
text-based mail and newsreaders. Yeah, life’s a bitch, and it sucks that
this whole internet thing took off and people don’t all use text
consoles
for emailing or posting news. You’re going to have to deal with it
someday,
and it’s arrogant presumption to say that the old way is right and any
innovations to the contrary are wrong.

I don’t think anyone wants your pity, just your common damned courtesy.

It’s also in your best interests to avoid being too much of a chore to
read, since your words will be tossed in the direction of /dev/null more

I generally only top-post if there’s nothing major in the content I need
to
refer to, or if doing so would drastically break up the flow of the
thread.
If others are bottom-posting, and I need context, I’ll follow suit. Here
I’m
inlining everything because it’s a point-by-point rebuttal. If I just
wanted
to say “I disagree” I’d probably have top-posted and been done with it.

I opened this email to read it. I don’t want to have to close it, open

another email, read that, close that one, then open this email again to
read it.

win-dows. mul-ti-task-ing. It’s 2006 man.

My time is infinitely more important to me than yours, so I don’t care

that you had to spend an extra three seconds trimming, and another two
seconds moving the cursor around for inserting text where needed. More
to the point, however, I know (where you do not seem to realize this)
that if I want others to read what I have to say, it would behoove me to
accomodate them rather than simply shoving any additional time spent on
them, especially since I will not be saving much time if they reply to
me in the same fashion and I get the same treatment in return.

Then I should be able to expect that you would accomodate my wishes as
well.
If I top-post first, will you respond in kind? Why is your way right and
mine’s wrong? Why must I bend over backwards for your way? Why should
everyone “bottom post” because some number of people wish it? Perhaps
it’s a
majority and perhaps it’s not.

You should be trimming whether you top- or bottom-post, anyway, so your

comments about optional context don’t really support top-posting as a
preferable alternative as far as I can see.

I generally do trim in all cases, but if I needn’t specific context in
my
reply, I shan’t bother with it. I generally won’t completely delete the
email being replied to so it’s obvious which mail I’m replying to…and
because it takes more time. I inline where appropriate, and I top-post
when
it’s not necessary. This allows for context to be maintained when
context is
important, and shoved aside when it’s not needed.

47

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 07:11:52AM +0900, James B. wrote:

those who dislike being asked not to top post; apparently it is
physically painful to avoid top posting when using Web-based list
readers ).

That’s an interesting point. With rare exception, the amount of anger
and bile flowing forth from top-posters who resent being asked to alter
their behavior seems . . . unproportional, in my experience. People who
dislike top-posting, from what I’ve seen, are quite happy to defend
their point of view extensively in a discussion of the topic, and
similarly quite happy to simply redirect anything that gets too
top-posty to /dev/null and ignore it (after an at least nominal attempt
to get people to clean up the spaghetti so that it’s readable,
sometimes).

. . . and, ultimately, that’s my final argument for avoiding TOFU (text
over, fullquote under) posting: if you actually want me, and the legions
of readers like me, to read and respond to your commentary, it might be
a good idea to make it less than annoying to try to sort out what you’re
saying and the context of it.

What struck me as interesting was that many people have told me that if
I dislike top posting, then tough titties. But, hey, that works out
fine. If I cannot quickly and easily parse a message, I skip it and
move on. Less work for James is always a good thing.

Case in point.

48

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 07:37:58AM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:

provide a means to either open emails by default at the end of the text
and “multitasking” that allow you to have multiple “windows” of content in
them available at the same time. In fact, I hear you can even have them all
on the same screen. I know plenty of people who refuse to use anything but
pine or elm or mutt and then complain about people who don’t bend over
backwards accomodating their archaic choice of UI. Again, it’s not my
problem that “graph icks” are something you choose to avoid. Most do
not.

I can have multiple emails open. I like to use my screen real estate to
best effect, however, with as much of the current email visible as
possible. I’m using mutt, and (wonder of wonders) it allows me to do
all that you say a mail client should do – but some of it is just not
terribly convenient.

Seriously though, I use GMail, and as other posters have commented, the
threading and handling of quoted text is really superb. If I want context

As it is in mutt – which does excellent threading, and allows “text
folding” to do stuff like hide quoted text. On the other hand, I don’t
like to miss things by assuming all quoted text is irrelevant, and if
it’s irrelevant, it should have been trimmed anyway.

Something distinctly lacking in Gmail is the excellent, productivity
enhancing keyboard interface of tools like mutt and Vim.

I generally only top-post if there’s nothing major in the content I need to
refer to, or if doing so would drastically break up the flow of the thread.
If others are bottom-posting, and I need context, I’ll follow suit. Here I’m
inlining everything because it’s a point-by-point rebuttal. If I just wanted
to say “I disagree” I’d probably have top-posted and been done with it.

On the other hand, if you top-post and someone later needs to refer to
the content of your message and keep the context of the previous
message, you’ve just created a context-parsing nightmare – or imposed
some annoying cut-and-paste overhead on the person responding to you.

Of course, if you just wanted to say “I disagree,” I’d have probably
been perfectly happy with you top-posting and being done with it, as
long as it was obvious that you hadn’t also posted something at the end.
After all, there’s no reason to respond to “I disagree” as the complete
original text of your message, and it can safely be thrown away without
ever missing it. On the other hand, you’d have just wasted the time of
everyone who already knows you disagree and doesn’t find any value of a
statement of opinion without any discussion of the whys and wherefores
attached. Seems like kind of a waste of bandwidth to me, as well as a
waste of braincycles.

I opened this email to read it. I don’t want to have to close it, open

another email, read that, close that one, then open this email again to
read it.

win-dows. mul-ti-task-ing. It’s 2006 man.

Windows doesn’t have a monopoly on multitasking. In fact, in
comparison with competing OSes, it kinda sucks at it under the hood (try
doing any serious threads programming on Windows some time).

I don’t WANT my desktop cluttered up with multiple windows just to
respond to your message. I’d rather /dev/null the thing. Besides, not
everyone in the world is blessed with the ability to use your tools or,
for that matter, with the arrogant assumption that their way is the only
way.

My time is infinitely more important to me than yours, so I don’t care

that you had to spend an extra three seconds trimming, and another two
seconds moving the cursor around for inserting text where needed. More
to the point, however, I know (where you do not seem to realize this)
that if I want others to read what I have to say, it would behoove me to
accomodate them rather than simply shoving any additional time spent on
them, especially since I will not be saving much time if they reply to
me in the same fashion and I get the same treatment in return.

If you make it clear that’s what you really want, I don’t see why not.
There are two responses you’re likely to receive from me if you request
top-posted responses:

  1. top-posted response
  2. no response at all, so at least you don’t have to deal with my
    bottom-posting and I don’t have to deal with your quirks

Then I should be able to expect that you would accomodate my wishes as well.
If I top-post first, will you respond in kind? Why is your way right and
mine’s wrong? Why must I bend over backwards for your way? Why should
everyone “bottom post” because some number of people wish it? Perhaps it’s a
majority and perhaps it’s not.

important, and shoved aside when it’s not needed.
One of my problems with top-posting is that, when it becomes appropriate
for inline-posting to take place, previous top-posting can really screw
that up so that either a lot of cut-and-paste has to occur or the
resultant reply looks like a plate of angel hair pasta.

49

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 08:33:26AM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:

systems out there.
Note the lower-case m following a period. Am I supposed to read minds
now?

I don’t WANT my desktop cluttered up with multiple windows just to

respond to your message. I’d rather /dev/null the thing. Besides, not
everyone in the world is blessed with the ability to use your tools or,
for that matter, with the arrogant assumption that their way is the only
way.

Kinda like bottom-post zealots, eh?

Sure . . . except that I’m at least bottom-posting to suit the
convenience of others as well as myself, thinking ahead about matters
involving complex discussions with long threads.

entire context of the original message so I know a replier isn’t cutting out
important bits I should be able to see or quoting things out of context.

If you want to reply to something irrelevant to the current subthread,
you should be replying to it directly, and not to someone fifteen levels
of reply later. Maybe that’s just me, though.

In the end, though, I doubt we’re going to come to terms on this. Some folks
will complain bitterly about the pain top-posting causes them, and those of
us using tools that don’t care about top or bottom-posting will do whatever
causes us the least headaches. Bottom posters will cry foul and tear into
folks that may or may not realized the agony they’re causing, and top
posters will decry the petty triviality of arguing over whether to reply at
the top or at the bottom. When all’s said and done we’re back where we
started, minus the time we spent to complain and vent our frustrations. And
isn’t that what makes the internet great? It’s the best therapy around!

I do occasionally get a bit of cathartic brain-stretching out of these
discussions.

Thank goodness ruby-talk/comp.lang.ruby specifically prescribes
bottom-posting, though.

50

This is not true.
NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages
are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they
will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either.
If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol…

Speak for yourself...

You are, again, speaking for yourself...

Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text?

Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What’s
with the skimming?

Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people

appreciated. Yes, you can’t make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

P.S.  Context is nice to have...

“William C.” [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]…

51

On 9/1/06, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

After all, there’s no reason to respond to “I disagree” as the complete
original text of your message, and it can safely be thrown away without
ever missing it. On the other hand, you’d have just wasted the time of
everyone who already knows you disagree and doesn’t find any value of a
statement of opinion without any discussion of the whys and wherefores
attached. Seems like kind of a waste of bandwidth to me, as well as a
waste of braincycles.

It was a contrived example. Next time I’ll use something you won’t take
so
literally, like XXXXX…hopefully you won’t argue the finer points of
replying to an email with a series of Xs. Let’s try to focus a bit,
shall
we? :slight_smile:

win-dows. mul-ti-task-ing. It’s 2006 man.

Windows doesn’t have a monopoly on multitasking. In fact, in
comparison with competing OSes, it kinda sucks at it under the hood (try
doing any serious threads programming on Windows some time).

Note the lower-case w. I do believe there are other multitasking
windowing
systems out there.

I don’t WANT my desktop cluttered up with multiple windows just to

respond to your message. I’d rather /dev/null the thing. Besides, not
everyone in the world is blessed with the ability to use your tools or,
for that matter, with the arrogant assumption that their way is the only
way.

Kinda like bottom-post zealots, eh?

One of my problems with top-posting is that, when it becomes appropriate
for inline-posting to take place, previous top-posting can really screw
that up so that either a lot of cut-and-paste has to occur or the
resultant reply looks like a plate of angel hair pasta.

Which is little better than posts that have been mercilessly chopped and
cropped…if you want to find the missing pieces and reply to them, you
have
to dig anyway. If you want to inline-post to multiple people from a
given
thread, you have to copy and paste. At least with a top post I can see
the
entire context of the original message so I know a replier isn’t cutting
out
important bits I should be able to see or quoting things out of context.

In the end, though, I doubt we’re going to come to terms on this. Some
folks
will complain bitterly about the pain top-posting causes them, and those
of
us using tools that don’t care about top or bottom-posting will do
whatever
causes us the least headaches. Bottom posters will cry foul and tear
into
folks that may or may not realized the agony they’re causing, and top
posters will decry the petty triviality of arguing over whether to reply
at
the top or at the bottom. When all’s said and done we’re back where we
started, minus the time we spent to complain and vent our frustrations.
And
isn’t that what makes the internet great? It’s the best therapy around!

52

“William C.” [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]…

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:
This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

This is not true.
NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP.  The messages

are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they
will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either.
If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol…

I think we’re all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume ‘most’
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

Speak for yourself...

I’ve read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

You are, again, speaking for yourself...

This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there’s nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text?

Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What’s
with the skimming?

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don’t like, or I don’t like. That’s just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people

appreciated. Yes, you can’t make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

Just to make a point, I will post this message again with top

posting
schemes and you I’ll wait for you to tell me that they were just as easy
to
understand. I don’t think you can do so, honestly…

53

This is not true.
NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages
are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they
will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either.
If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol…

“William C.” [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]…

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:
This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

Speak for yourself...

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

You are, again, speaking for yourself...

I think we’re all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume ‘most’
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

I’ve read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text?

Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What’s
with the skimming?

This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there’s nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people

appreciated. Yes, you can’t make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

Just to make a point, I will post this message again with top

posting
schemes and you I’ll wait for you to tell me that they were just as easy
to
understand. I don’t think you can do so, honestly…

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don’t like, or I don’t like. That’s just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

Protocols help us communiate.  You don't like communicating?
54

Just Another Victim of the -spamfilter-t Morality wrote:

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:
This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

You managed to misquote me here. You have completed destroyed the
‘context’ you so ardently desire. I did not say that, ‘unknown’ did.

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

You are, again, speaking for yourself...

Of course I am. How am I to speak for others when I am not them?

Just to make a point, I will post this message again with top
posting
schemes and you I’ll wait for you to tell me that they were just as easy
to
understand. I don’t think you can do so, honestly…

Well, had you not misquoted me (and possibly others, I gave up on your
‘context’ after a bit) and had you not posted 3 times almost the exact
same message (the second of which, I understand was to prove a point,
but it appears they are out of order (thanks to usenet, I guess?) and
the third, a mis-post… maybe?), you probably would have won that
point. Instead, you managed to be at least as confusing as a post with
no context, and more confusing than a top-post.

Yes, top-posting with no context in your reply is confusing. But then,
it’s the same as returning someone’s phone and answering ‘No.’ to the
question they left on your answering machine. Not everyone does will
with the phone communication thing, but it IS possible to top-post
without being confusing. Just as it is possible to bottom-post and
confuse the heck out of people.

In a setting without clear set rules, neither approach is right or wrong
in itself.

55

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 11:03:04AM +0900, William C. wrote:

Well, had you not misquoted me (and possibly others, I gave up on your
‘context’ after a bit) and had you not posted 3 times almost the exact
same message (the second of which, I understand was to prove a point,
but it appears they are out of order (thanks to usenet, I guess?) and
the third, a mis-post… maybe?), you probably would have won that
point. Instead, you managed to be at least as confusing as a post with
no context, and more confusing than a top-post.

Ignore for a moment the individual errors made, and think about the
point addressed – and how it was (obviously) intended to be conveyed.
You say “you probably would have won that point”: so examine the point,
count it as a “win”, and move on. Just as I am open to congenital
idiots occasionally saying something insightful, I am willing to
overlook a newsgroup posting error to get the core point. If you
continue to disagree with an opposing viewpoint, ensure it’s the
opposing viewpoint with which you disagree, and that you are not just
disagreeing because you dislike someone’s typos (for instance).

Yes, top-posting with no context in your reply is confusing. But then,
it’s the same as returning someone’s phone and answering ‘No.’ to the
question they left on your answering machine. Not everyone does will
with the phone communication thing, but it IS possible to top-post
without being confusing. Just as it is possible to bottom-post and
confuse the heck out of people.

It is also possible to drive drunk without killing people, and it is
possible to t-bone another car and kill people in it without drinking.
There’s a distinct difference in likelihood, however, so the “it is
possible” argument seems largely irrelevant to me. I don’t think anyone
was claiming that top-posters or bottom-posters or inline-posters or
stupid-posters or TOFU posters or anyone else in particular is literally
perfect and without error, after all.

In a setting without clear set rules, neither approach is right or wrong
in itself.

Right or wrong isn’t the point of contention, as far as I can see –
it’s convenience, courtesy, and clear communication.

56

“William C.” [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]…

Just Another Victim of the -spamfilter-t Morality wrote:

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:
This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

You managed to misquote me here. You have completed destroyed the
‘context’ you so ardently desire. I did not say that, ‘unknown’ did.

Yes, I did misquote you...  I think this is a clear indication of

how
hard it is for me to make a top posted post…

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

You are, again, speaking for yourself...

Of course I am. How am I to speak for others when I am not them?

Well, if you can't speak for others, why would you say things like

“I
think we’re all guilty of ego-centrism here.” You are clearly speaking
for
others when you say that they are, too…

the third, a mis-post… maybe?), you probably would have won that
point. Instead, you managed to be at least as confusing as a post with
no context, and more confusing than a top-post.

Oh, did you respond to the first post you recieved?
The three messages may have had the same content (aside from the one

with editing errors) but they had entirely different presentations.
Which
one did you prefer? I’d be surprised if it weren’t the bottom-posted
one…

In fact, because I'm stubborn, I'm going to post the misquoted post

again, with proper quotes, since you were so hung up on that point.
Then,
perhaps, my point will be clear to you…

Yes, top-posting with no context in your reply is confusing. But then,
it’s the same as returning someone’s phone and answering ‘No.’ to the
question they left on your answering machine. Not everyone does will
with the phone communication thing, but it IS possible to top-post
without being confusing. Just as it is possible to bottom-post and
confuse the heck out of people.

I think what you mean to say is that there exists messages for which

top posting would not be confusing. I think it’s fair to say that most
posts have multiple points and, if you are going to be referring to
those
points, it’s simply less confusing to bottom-post than it is to
top-post.

In a setting without clear set rules, neither approach is right or wrong
in itself.

I don't like your use of "right" and "wrong" here.  I think a better

characterization is whether it’s polite or impolite. Top-posting on
usenet
is impolite. It goes against ettiquette…

57

“Just Another Victim of the Ambient M.” [email protected]
wrote
in message news:[email protected]…

think we’re all guilty of ego-centrism here." You are clearly speaking
for others when you say that they are, too…

Okay, now that I was forced to re-read my posts (in order to correct

the misquoted post), I now see that this is unfair. You were only
speaking
for yourself when you said what I had quoted.

My point is that just because _you_ don't find top posting confusing

doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to top post. Since you are trying to
communicate with us and we (at least, I) find top-posting confusing, it
would be better if you were to refrain from it. You’re trying to get
your
point across to us, right?

58

Just Another Victim of the -spamfilter-t Morality wrote:

My point is that just because _you_ don't find top posting confusing

doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to top post. Since you are trying to
communicate with us and we (at least, I) find top-posting confusing, it
would be better if you were to refrain from it. You’re trying to get
your
point across to us, right?

I have accepted and acknowledged that this list requires bottom-posting
not only to abide by the rules, but to prevent inconveniencing the
majority of the long-time members. That is not at debate.

But again, the OP asked in general, and in general, I say it’s a
stalemate. Neither side is ‘right or wrong’, ‘polite or impolite’,
‘confusing or clear’, or any pair of opposites assuming the person
posting the message knows how to get his/her point across.

Well, if you can’t speak for others, why would you say things like
“I
think we’re all guilty of ego-centrism here.” You are clearly speaking
for
others when you say that they are, too…

‘Speaking for others’ means you are stating how they feel, not what they
have done. Instead, I was noting the tendency for people in this thread
to assume everyone else was like them. Usenet posters assumed they were
the largest group, List posters and Web posters did the same thing.
Only 1 of those groups can be right, and I haven’t seen statistics to
back any of them up. Everyone also assumes that their posting
preference is best for everyone, or at least ‘least harmful’ for
everyone.

Back on the polite issue, I will agree that posting contrary to the
groups wishes is impolite. But when the group’s wishes (the world’s
wishes) are unknown, it is not impolite to post in a manner that does
not bother you. I will continue to only bottom-post here and top and
bottom post as I see the need to everyone else.

My argument stands: Top-posting is not inherently impolite or
incorrect. It deepnds on where you are doing it.

59

This is not true.
NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages
are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they
will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either.
If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol…

“William C.” [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]…

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:
This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

Speak for yourself...

I think we’re all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume ‘most’
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

You are, again, speaking for yourself...

I’ve read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text?

Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What’s
with the skimming?

This is not a “forum”, it is Usenet. There are many different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a “forum”.

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there’s nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people

appreciated. Yes, you can’t make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don’t like, or I don’t like. That’s just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

Wow, this top-posting really is hard.  I almost made a similar

mistake
to the one I had done, before…
Is this any more clear?

60

William C. [email protected] wrote:

My argument stands: Top-posting is not inherently impolite or
incorrect. It deepnds on where you are doing it.

It is, however, virtually always inherently inappropriate because
it is not the most effect style for effectivee communications.