From: Chad Perrin Date: 2006-09-02T05:55:43+09:00 Subject: Re: Off topic: What is "top posting" ?? On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:08:36PM +0900, William Crawford wrote: > unknown wrote: > > William Crawford 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. > > 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 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 up with an unnavigable mass of out-of-order text. I'm not blind, and I have no other reason to use a screen reader, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't accomodate them. Luckily, I can accomodate them AND suit my own preferences, since I find having to start reading at the bottom and work my way upward to be annoying. Et cetera. > > 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. Yes, we can all understand even inline top posting, but it's really sort of annoying nonetheless. And yes, I really have seen inline top posting before. Thankfully, not on this list. It was awful. > > > 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. Wait . . . you mean that greater-than symbols as indicators of old text (like in this email) aren't a useful clue to you? > > 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. As quoted from the ruby-talk (aka comp.lang.ruby) FAQ section detailing the list's/newsgroup's/forum's posting guidelines: # PLEASE NOTE! Include quoted text from previous posts before your responses. And selectively quote as much as is relevant. # Use plain text; don't use HTML, RTF, or Word. Most mail or newsreader programs have an option for this; if yours doesn't, get a (freeware) program or use a web- based service that does. # Include examples from files as in-line text; don't use attachments. Even though I use the mailing list interface, I have no illusions that this is a newsgroup first. The mailing list (and especially the forum) interface is provided as a courtesy, as I understand it. As far as I know standard usenet etiquette, I'll try to observe it. Luckily for us, these rules are spelled out at: http://hypermetrics.com/rubyhacker/clrFAQ.html#tag22 Luckily for me in particular, these posting guidelines exactly suit my preferences for mailing list email as well. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid