From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-09-02T09:32:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Off topic: What is "top posting" ??

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 08:33:26AM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> On 9/1/06, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> ><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).
> 
> 
> 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
> >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.


> 
> >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.

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.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.