Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end it and adding a reply, it kills the indentation.
-wes
From: Wes James comptekki@icloud.com
To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end it and adding a reply, it kills the indentation.
-wes
A lot of the "new improved" email web interfaces do this, including yahoo. I SO miss the more simple clients..
(Hold on while I manually put > in the thread above me, so people know where the reply starts.)
______________________________________________________________________ If life gives you lemons, keep them-- because hey.. free lemons. "♥ Sticker" fixer: http://microflush.org/stuff/stickers/heartFix.html
Joseph Spenner wrote:
From: Wes James comptekki@icloud.com
To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end it and adding a reply, it kills the indentation.
A lot of the "new improved" email web interfaces do this, including yahoo. I SO miss the more simple clients..
(Hold on while I manually put > in the thread above me, so people know where the reply starts.)
Increment agreement with the above by 100.
I do that with most of my wife's emails - she's on Lookout, I mean, Outlook at work.... I DESPISE trying to read a thread someone forwards like that, read the bottom, go up, read down, then discover someone's mailtool actually did it right, so go up to go down....
mark
There can be only... Mutt. Eric On 05/16, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Joseph Spenner wrote:
From: Wes James comptekki@icloud.com
To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end it and adding a reply, it kills the indentation.
A lot of the "new improved" email web interfaces do this, including yahoo. I SO miss the more simple clients..
(Hold on while I manually put > in the thread above me, so people know where the reply starts.)
Increment agreement with the above by 100.
I do that with most of my wife's emails - she's on Lookout, I mean, Outlook at work.... I DESPISE trying to read a thread someone forwards like that, read the bottom, go up, read down, then discover someone's mailtool actually did it right, so go up to go down....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, Joseph.Spenner@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
From: Wes James comptekki@icloud.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end it and adding a reply, it kills the indentation.
-wes
A lot of the "new improved" email web interfaces do this, including yahoo. I SO miss the more simple clients..
(Hold on while I manually put > in the thread above me, so people know where the reply starts.)
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
I have heard that is so when people come in late they can just read from top to bottom and find out what is going on. The only problem I have with that argument is most times people snip large parts of the thread so you don't have all the info anyway. And If I pick up a thread late I don't have any problem with reading someone's reply on top and then reading on to find out what the thread is about.
Thanks,
Steve Clark wrote:
On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, Joseph.Spenner@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
From: Wes James comptekki@icloud.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end it and adding a reply, it kills the indentation.
A lot of the "new improved" email web interfaces do this, including yahoo. I SO miss the more simple clients..
(Hold on while I manually put > in the thread above me, so people know where the reply starts.)
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
I have heard that is so when people come in late they can just read from top to bottom and find out what is going on. The only problem I have
with that argument is
most times people snip large parts of the thread so you don't have all
the info anyway. And
If I pick up a thread late I don't have any problem with reading
someone's reply on top
and then reading on to find out what the thread is about.
Read my previous post on this. And add to it that a lot of us snip, so that we don't have 150 lines to reply to one sentence in the middle. However, we *DO* leave in the stuff that makes that response comprehensible.
However, top posting has ZERO relationship to somewhere in those 200 lines of post, complete with many sigs, that you're responding to. How do I have a *clue*, without reading down, up up down, and on and on?
This was a M$ "innovation", just like, oh, IE6....
mark
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
It is proper mailing list etiquette.
There's no hard and fast rule that a person cannot top post (c'mon it happens). But it definitely is nice when people don't.
I have heard that is so when people come in late they can just read from top to bottom and find out what is going on. The only problem I have with that argument is most times people snip large parts of the thread so you don't have all the info anyway. And If I pick up a thread late I don't have any problem with reading someone's reply on top and then reading on to find out what the thread is about.
Bottom posting allows a person to read from oldest to newest. And posting inline as many of us do, allows our comments to be grouped with the content we're making a remark about.
It's also mighty nice when people trim out the old stuff that they're not commenting on. At least when it's loooooong email. (And there's the disadvantage with missing content from snipping as you pointed out above.)
Have a happy Friday everyone.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
Because list messages go to many people who are only slightly interested and it makes it difficult to know what question is being answered.
I have heard that is so when people come in late they can just read from top to bottom and find out what is going on.
Yes.
The only problem I have with that argument is most times people snip large parts of the thread so you don't have all the info anyway.
That's a feature, not a problem.
And If I pick up a thread late I don't have any problem with reading someone's reply on top and then reading on to find out what the thread is about.
List conversations diverge over the course of the thread. One person's response may answer one question and another be about a completely different part. Subsequent responses to each of these may have little to do with earlier parts of the thread. If each message contains the correct context, no one has to bother wading through the earlier messages only to find that they are mostly irrelevant. And in any case, your mail reader should be able to track the thread backwards in the unlikely event that you do want to read the whole previous set of messages so there is never a need to copy/quote the whole thing.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:07:16PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, Joseph.Spenner@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Although it's become such a habit that I've had people say, you just sent me back an email with nothing added.
People blame it on MS, and Outlook, but no, it's simple laziness and sloppiness. Mutt puts the cursor at the top of an email too, and that's where it should go. Then, you can read and reply inline, like a conversation.
On 05/16/2014 03:17 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:07:16PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, Joseph.Spenner@netwolves.securence.com wrote: Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Although it's become such a habit that I've had people say, you just sent me back an email with nothing added.
People blame it on MS, and Outlook, but no, it's simple laziness and sloppiness. Mutt puts the cursor at the top of an email too, and that's where it should go. Then, you can read and reply inline, like a conversation.
Well I find people get very upset about it, and to me in the grand scheme of things it seems pretty low on the totem pole.
Regards,
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 05/16/2014 03:17 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:07:16PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, Joseph.Spenner@netwolves.securence.com wrote: Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Although it's become such a habit that I've had people say, you just sent me back an email with nothing added.
People blame it on MS, and Outlook, but no, it's simple laziness and sloppiness. Mutt puts the cursor at the top of an email too, and that's where it should go. Then, you can read and reply inline, like a conversation.
Well I find people get very upset about it, and to me in the grand scheme of things it seems pretty low on the totem pole.
I can deal with the top posting (we are required to do that at work because of our customers), but the "you sent me a blank email" crowd (some top posters such as my vet) does get to me.
Regards,
-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:27:23PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
It's polite and shows you are a gentleman. It's in the same category of "consideration for others" as keeping to your locale's preferred side of roads, hallways and stairways, restricting flatus in elevators, dressing in clean clothes that cover your locale's taboo parts of the body, chewing with closed lips, cleaning teeth, ears, noses and butts in private, moderating the urge to scratch every single itch, not speaking in foul language in front of decent people, using correct spelling and grammar, not spitting, especially on carpets, and suchlike meaningless niceties.
In other words, it's part of pretending that one is not a baboon.
It is true we are apes. We are the apes who pretend to be better than that.
Well I find people get very upset about it, and to me in the grand scheme of things it seems pretty low on the totem pole.
It's almost as annoying as using funny fonts and failing to use fmt(1) to wrap lines at 72 characters. (So called flowed text.)
Even worse is failing to trim posts of extraneous verbiage.
Regards,
-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
And .sigs longer than the message.
In the last few months, I've done some top posting in order to conform to the local norms of certain mailing lists (not this one), which I have noticed consist mostly of lamers. Today, I take the "never again" oath.
BTW, the "totem pole" figure of speech here is inappropriate. "Low on the totem pole" refers to low social status, not low priority or importance, unless your intention was to accuse people who format their email according to the received standards as being low-class individuals.
I point out to you that in the area of manners, it matters not a whit that you consider some behavior inappropriate, vulgar or even vicious. It matters what the other person feels; that is why there are no rules of polite behavior for when you are alone. Your goal (in the area of manners and etiquette) is to cater to what pleases others, not yourself.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm saying what is expected of them; meeting the expectations of others is one's own choice.
Dave
On 05/16/2014 06:40 PM, Original Woodchuck wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:27:23PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
It's polite and shows you are a gentleman. It's in the same category of "consideration for others" as keeping to your locale's preferred side of roads, hallways and stairways, restricting flatus in elevators, dressing in clean clothes that cover your locale's taboo parts of the body, chewing with closed lips, cleaning teeth, ears, noses and butts in private, moderating the urge to scratch every single itch, not speaking in foul language in front of decent people, using correct spelling and grammar, not spitting, especially on carpets, and suchlike meaningless niceties.
In other words, it's part of pretending that one is not a baboon.
It is true we are apes. We are the apes who pretend to be better than that.
Well I find people get very upset about it, and to me in the grand scheme of things it seems pretty low on the totem pole.
It's almost as annoying as using funny fonts and failing to use fmt(1) to wrap lines at 72 characters. (So called flowed text.)
Even worse is failing to trim posts of extraneous verbiage.
Regards,
-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
And .sigs longer than the message.
In the last few months, I've done some top posting in order to conform to the local norms of certain mailing lists (not this one), which I have noticed consist mostly of lamers. Today, I take the "never again" oath.
BTW, the "totem pole" figure of speech here is inappropriate. "Low on the totem pole" refers to low social status, not low priority or importance, unless your intention was to accuse people who format their email according to the received standards as being low-class individuals.
I point out to you that in the area of manners, it matters not a whit that you consider some behavior inappropriate, vulgar or even vicious. It matters what the other person feels; that is why there are no rules of polite behavior for when you are alone. Your goal (in the area of manners and etiquette) is to cater to what pleases others, not yourself.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm saying what is expected of them; meeting the expectations of others is one's own choice.
Dave _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
All I can say to that rant is Wow!!!
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting and irritating.
Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting makes sense because it is the fastest and most efficient method of conveying a response to others on the mail list.
There is an art to replying intelligently to a previous posting - interspersing replies to the previous poster's comments BUT ALWAYS EXCLUDING SURPLUS TEXT.
I blame M$ for introducing TOP POSTING.
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
Top-posting is nearly always combined with fully quoting the previous mailing. That is bsolutely unnecessary on a mailinglist and even a waste of resources.
Strip off redundant content!
Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting and irritating.
Then why not just erasing all the rubbish you don't care about?
Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting makes sense because it is the fastest and most efficient method of conveying a response to others on the mail list.
No, it just demonstrates that you as the top-poster and full quoter are not caring for the previous communication and not caring enough for a sane readable thread. If the top-poster just cares for his quick and "easy" action, then why does he reply at all?
There is an art to replying intelligently to a previous posting - interspersing replies to the previous poster's comments BUT ALWAYS EXCLUDING SURPLUS TEXT.
full ack!
I blame M$ for introducing TOP POSTING.
It makes no sense to blame a company, it is the people who don't make enough effort to help everyone on a mailinglist to follow the discussions in an efficient way by seeing the questions and answers in a quick way.
Have you ever searched for something in a mailing list archive and then stumbled about a thread where proper quoting and stripping the context is wildly mixed with top-poster and full-quoter messages? It is a mess to find the helpful arguments and content.
Alexander
On May 17, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Alexander Dalloz ad+lists@uni-x.org wrote:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
In reading through this perennial and ultimately time-wasting argument, I will simply say this.
One of the adages that drove the creation of the Internet is thus: "Be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept".
This could also be stated in the terms of another great piece of literature: "Take the beam out of your own eye before you worry about the mote in your brother's".
Put another way, if people would just spend the time worrying about what they do and stop worrying about the behavior of others, this would be a much nicer world to live in. Even if it annoys you.
Now I think I'm just going to filter out this thread, because in arguing back and forth about this, you're just wasting MY space and time. Have a nice day.
I almost both top posted AND bottom posted on this thread just to be annoying, but not worth it.
--Russell
On Sun, 2014-05-18 at 00:29 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
I am against TOP POSTING. But I write truthfully that it does make sense when the person, who incorporates 200 lines of redundant text in their reply, posts.
I am responding to reality. Leider das "reality is not always perfect".
Top-posting is nearly always combined with fully quoting the previous mailing. That is bsolutely unnecessary on a mailinglist and even a waste of resources.
Strip off redundant content!
I wholly agree.
Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting and irritating.
Then why not just erasing all the rubbish you don't care about?
I do with my postings.
Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting makes sense because it is the fastest and most efficient method of conveying a response to others on the mail list.
No, it just demonstrates that you as the top-poster and full quoter are not caring for the previous communication and not caring enough for a sane readable thread. If the top-poster just cares for his quick and "easy" action, then why does he reply at all?
I am not a "top" poster. I am an "insert" poster.
There is an art to replying intelligently to a previous posting - interspersing replies to the previous poster's comments BUT ALWAYS EXCLUDING SURPLUS TEXT.
full ack!
Wunderbar :-)
Have you ever searched for something in a mailing list archive and then stumbled about a thread where proper quoting and stripping the context is wildly mixed with top-poster and full-quoter messages? It is a mess to find the helpful arguments and content.
I have experienced the same difficulties.
Mfg,
Paul.
Quoting Alexander Dalloz ad+lists@uni-x.org:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
+1
On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
<snip>
I blame M$ for introducing TOP POSTING.
It makes no sense to blame a company, it is the people who don't make enough effort to help everyone on a mailinglist to follow the discussions in an efficient way by seeing the questions and answers in a quick way.
<snip> Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
mark
On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting long before Outlook arrived :-)
Dave...
Dave Cross wrote:
On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting long before Outlook arrived :-)
I don't think so. They only got email that was widely used in the early nineties, I think - things like Lotus Notes and such were there first, but took over *sigh* then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook says that there was an "Exchange client", but then shows Outlook going back to Outlook for DOS and Win 3.1.
mark
On 19 May 2014 15:47, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Dave Cross wrote:
On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting long before Outlook arrived :-)
I don't think so. They only got email that was widely used in the early nineties, I think - things like Lotus Notes and such were there first, but took over *sigh* then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook says that there was an "Exchange client", but then shows Outlook going back to Outlook for DOS and Win 3.1.
I'm thinking specifically of Microsoft Mail[1], which I remember using in 1991. I don't remember seeing Outlook until the mid 90s.
Dave...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Mail
On 19-05-14 17:10, Dave Cross wrote:
On 19 May 2014 15:47, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Dave Cross wrote:
On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting long before Outlook arrived :-)
I don't think so. They only got email that was widely used in the early nineties, I think - things like Lotus Notes and such were there first, but took over *sigh* then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook says that there was an "Exchange client", but then shows Outlook going back to Outlook for DOS and Win 3.1.
I'm thinking specifically of Microsoft Mail[1], which I remember using in 1991. I don't remember seeing Outlook until the mid 90s.
Dave...
There are 2 lines of M$ mail clients, Mail that became Outlook express and then Mail again and Outlook (the exchange enabled client). -- DeHostingFirma.nl
On 5/19/2014 8:17 AM, Dominic Hoogendijk wrote:
There are 2 lines of M$ mail clients, Mail that became Outlook express and then Mail again and Outlook (the exchange enabled client). -- DeHostingFirma.nl
The original Microsoft Mail wasn't internet mail at all, it used a completely proprietary shared file system based server, although there was an awful internet gateway for it. This mutated into Exchange, which mutated into Outlook + Exchange Server.
Outlook Express was originally Microsoft Internet Mail and News, MSIMN, it came out circa 1996, bundled with MS Internet Explorer 3. It got rebranded as Outlook Express circa 1998 and MSIE 4.0.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 AM, mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
<snip> >> I blame M$ for introducing TOP POSTING. > > It makes no sense to blame a company, it is the people who don't make > enough effort to help everyone on a mailinglist to follow the > discussions in an efficient way by seeing the questions and answers in a > quick way. <snip> Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
I'ts not really a bad thing in the context of 1<->1 messages and business communications where you are interested enough to not need the reply put in context for you but might want the audit-trail of the whole previous conversation for reference.
But mail list messages go to a lot of people who have only a passing interest and unless they are a participant in the thread, may not have seen it before to understand the context - or they may have found it in an archive, looking for the same answers. So, it you want anyone to pay attention, the message has to make sense on its own with irrelevant cruft removed and the new parts place in the correct context.
Anyway, defaults only matter if you don't understand how to move your cursor before typing.
On 5/19/2014 9:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I'ts not really a bad thing in the context of 1<->1 messages and business communications where you are interested enough to not need the reply put in context for you but might want the audit-trail of the whole previous conversation for reference.
But mail list messages go to a lot of people who have only a passing interest and unless they are a participant in the thread, may not have seen it before to understand the context - or they may have found it in an archive, looking for the same answers. So, it you want anyone to pay attention, the message has to make sense on its own with irrelevant cruft removed and the new parts place in the correct context.
Anyway, defaults only matter if you don't understand how to move your cursor before typing.
+1 (actually lets say +100 just for that last line!) -- Steve L.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 AM, mark m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
<snip>
I'ts not really a bad thing in the context of 1<->1 messages and business communications where you are interested enough to not need the reply put in context for you but might want the audit-trail of the whole previous conversation for reference.
But mail list messages go to a lot of people who have only a passing interest and unless they are a participant in the thread, may not have seen it before to understand the context - or they may have found it in an archive, looking for the same answers. So, it you want anyone to pay attention, the message has to make sense on its own with irrelevant cruft removed and the new parts place in the correct context.
What Mike says, above, is *the* most significant argument, and, IMO, trumps all counter-arguments. This *is* a mailing list. Frequently, for example, I'll be busy, or a thread doesn't seem interesting, until I see something that leads me to look in on it... and if it's filled with top-posted unreadable threads, even if I might have some really helpful suggestions, I usually don't *want* to read enough to make them, because I have no idea what's been suggested or discounted before, and I *ain't* gonna read down, up, down, up, up, down....
Top post if you want... but don't expect cooperation or help.
mark
On 2014-05-17, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
No, it doesn't. Just trim the excess.
--keith
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 15:33 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2014-05-17, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
No, it doesn't. Just trim the excess.
Please tell those who incorporate the junk.
Am 16.05.2014 um 19:07 schrieb Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com:
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
because in conventional spelling systems of western languages text is written from top to bottom (applies also for reading) :-)
-- LF
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Always Learning -
Dave Cross -
Dave Stevens -
Dominic Hoogendijk -
Eric Falbe -
John R Pierce -
Joseph Spenner -
Keith Keller -
Leon Fauster -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
mark
-
Mauricio Tavares -
Original Woodchuck -
Russell Miller -
Scott Robbins -
SilverTip257 -
Stephen Harris -
Steve Clark -
Steve Lindemann -
Wes James