From: Chad Perrin Date: 2006-09-02T08:10:17+09:00 Subject: Re: Off topic: What is "top posting" ?? On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 07:37:58AM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote: > 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 Perrin wrote: > > > >So does mine, but I still don't like having to switch back and forth > >between emails to get context. I'd rather read inline responses or > >... > >You talk about how great your mail client or mail user agent is, but > >somehow you overlook the fact that a decent client or user agent should > >provide a means to either open emails by default at the end of the text > >or move to the end with a single keystroke. Mine does that. What's > >wrong with yours? > >.... . . and that sounds great, except that sometimes context involves two > >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. 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. > > 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. 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. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit." - W. Somerset Maugham