Off topic: What is "top posting" ??

[Chad Perrin]

If it ain't broke...

It would also horribly, terribly break backwards compatibility - mail
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.

 

[James Britt]

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 Britt

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

 

[Chad Perrin]

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 ).

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.

 

[Chad Perrin]

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




..and one other comment about having to "open" emails many times...

<bait>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.</bait>

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

<bait>win-dows. mul-ti-task-ing. It's 2006 man.</bait>

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

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.


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

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.

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.

 

[Chad Perrin]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

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...

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...

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

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...

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

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...

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?

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?

 

[William Crawford]

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

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.

 

[Chad Perrin]

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.

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

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...

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...

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.

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...

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

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...

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?

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?

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

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...

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?

 

[William Crawford]

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.

 

[William Crawford]

Once you gateway it to Usenet, that *is* prime. There are
instantly *millions* of potential readers, plus it is archived
and will be read by people decades from today. Usenet eclipses
anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
regardless of how it all began.

You do realize there are many, many, many more people that know how to
use a web browser than know how to use usenet? Google indexes
ruby-forum.com. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more useful to search google
than search usenet if you want answers about Ruby. You will not only
get posts from this forum, but also from the rest of the internet. So
from your own argument, the forum is prime.

In reality, the mailing list is prime. It is apparently what most of
the regulars use, and they are the ones that answer the majority of the
questions. When you want an answer, the number of potential readers
does not matter. Only the number of potential (correct) responders
does. That majority of those are on the mailing list.

Now, everyone keeps going on about 'if you want an answer, you'll have
to post in a certain way'. This is not true. I have not seen 1 post on
here that failed to get an answer because someone top-posted. I've seen
plenty of 'don't top post' replies, but the majority of them were tagged
onto an answer. If changing the format of your post doesn't change the
answer, how is the 'wrong way' ineffective?

 

[Marc Heiler]

Top posting is less logical than bottom posting.

We all (maybe almost all?) read from top to bottom,
thus new entries are appended at bottom.

I dont ever top post, and I rarely (in fact I'd
even claim never) see top posting in the ~ dozen
mailing list I do read/participate.

Dont think "etiquette" comes before logic.
I dare to claim that whoever comes up with
etiquette ALSO follows logic.

 

[William Crawford]

Whats with the "unknown" attribute? Are you afraid to associate
my name with the statements I make?

The forum doesn't say your name. I assume that's because you are on
usenet, and it's failing to parse your name. No slight is intended.

Which doesn't mean that any significant percentage of them read
Web forums, much less that particular forum.

Ditto for those reading usenet.

For the google search engine, they are exactly equal.

My argument was searching the newsgroup vs searching the entire
internet, including this newsgroup via ruby-forum.com. There's no way
you can possibly think those are going to provide the same results. The
'entire internet' method has got to provide more.

Not even close.

You aren't arguing that with me. Someone earlier provided evidence that
the mailing list is prime. You'll have to argue that with them.

You seem willing to make just about *any* damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means...

That is trivially false.

Only when taken out of context. You shouldn't split my paragraphs and
try to make each sentence an entire argument by itself.

And the reverse? For those who wish to post useful answers?
The vast majority of readers they target will not be on the
mailing list.

We have already determined that those here who post useful answers all
do so under the rules of the mailing list/newsgroup/forum. I can't
imagine why you'd want to start arguing about nothing.

Regardless, where the "majority" of those potentially correct
responders are located is not significant for someone who wants
an answer. They still want maximum exposure, simply because the
one correct answer that they understand best might come from a
minority.

Before you argued that getting your message across to those who can
answer is the goal. Now you say it isn't. The method of communication
HAS to match the arena it is presented in. You wouldn't try to use
hand-signals on the radio, and you wouldn't top-post in a forum that
doesn't allow top-posting, if you truly wanted an answer. Assuming you
KNOW these limitations, of course. Not everyone does, hence the OP's
question.

You are blowing blue smoke.

"You seem willing to make just about *any* damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means..." - unknown

On *any* forum there are often articles that garner less
response than others simply because the questions are ill
stated, the article is awkwardly formatted, or any number of
similar limiting factors.

Yes, if the poster is unable to make sense in his post, it will 'garner
less response.' I'm not talking about not making sense. I'm talking
about top-posting. It does not inherently 'make less sense', no matter
what you think. For the majority of the people here, it is trivial to
read the post prior to the response. Any half-arse attempt at a post
will make sense with little or no context. Only if the poster
deliberately posts only an answer with no context whatsoever is there a
problem.

 

[William Crawford]

This is typical of your entire article. Nothing was out of
context, and no attempt to make each sentence stand alone.

If you seperate a portion of a statement from the rest of it, you have
taken it out of context. You can't dispute that. It's what it means.
You took a single sentence from a paragraph and responded only to it.

I.e., your discussion appears to be emotional, illogical,
and done for the sake of argument.

I'll opt out, as it is much the same as tickling trolls.

What!? MINE is? My only contention is that top-posting is not
inherently wrong. Yours is that it is because it confuses some people
and pisses them off. THAT is the emotional argument. 'Some people' are
not 'all people.' Without any facts to back that up, 'some people'
could be 2 in a billion or 2 in 3. We don't know. I could easily as
say that bottom posting confuses some people because we've had people in
this very thread say so.

As I said before, stalemate.

 

[Chad Perrin]

'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.

Actually, at least three people haven't just assumed everyone else was
like them: Jamal, me, and someone who favors top-posting (I don't recall
exactly who that was). Jamal's obvious: he spoke for himself as a blind
list user. I specifically identified different groups who use this
venue via differing interfaces and, in fact, mistakenly spoke of the
usenet users as though comp.lang.ruby was here "first", being a mailing
list user myself, and talked about the effects of top-, bottom-, and
inline-posting as regards the sort of technical discussion that happens
here. Whoever it is that I'm recalling from amongst the top-posting
advocates pretty much just said "I don't give a damn what anyone else
likes, this is what I prefer, and if the list didn't have specific rules
about top-posting you could all just screw yourselves." That, of
course, is an exaggerated paraphrase, but that's the message that was
conveyed.

Others may also have not just assumed everyone else was like them. I
haven't been keeping score. These are three examples that leap
immediately to mind, however.

In any case, if I didn't think top-posting interfered with clear
communication for the type of email activities of which I'm a part
(technical discussions, et cetera), I wouldn't have any problem with it.
I don't know for sure, but the way you phrased your statement about what
is "least harmful", it sounds like you're saying we all just pick a
preference and defend it as "least harmful", whereas I learned to prefer
bottom/inline posting specifically because, from my experience and some
thought about the matter, it seems "least harmful".

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.

. . and my point, in a nutshell, is that when circumstances,
preferences, and so on are unknown, bottom/inline posting seems most
courteous and most conducive to clear communication.

. . and I seem to like words starting with C when I say that, which is
not an impression I contradict in my signature block. How odd.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Once you gateway it to Usenet, that *is* prime. There are
instantly *millions* of potential readers, plus it is archived
and will be read by people decades from today. Usenet eclipses
anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
regardless of how it all began.

I . . . don't agree. The mailing list, too, is archived -- and there
are a great many people subscribed through the mailing list. It's
possible usenet may bring more readers to this venue, but it also may
not. Yes, millions of potential readers, just like the mailing list and
web forum provide millions of potential readers. The way things are
going in terms of Internet usage, usenet numbers are likely to decrease
relative to mailing list numbers (and what web forum numbers will do is
probably something of a mystery for this venue, though considering the
reduced necessary personal investment in discussion as compared with the
mailing list it seems like a second-class citizen by definition).

Usenet may experience a resurgence of popularity at some point, but if
we're to make assumptions based on current and recent trends, I'd say
that planning for the future would probably require planning more for
the mailing list than anything else. At the very least, I'd say that
considering the newsgroup interface primary to the detriment of any
other interface just because it's usenet is probably a suboptimal
approach at best.

In fact, in a forum where the context supposedly is available, it is
*not* effectively available. Usually it is impossible to determine
even which article is being responded to, much less which part of the
article the comment applies to.

That simply is not effective communications.

. . and that's a very good point that hadn't occurred to me.