From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-09-02T11:17:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Off topic: What is "top posting" ??

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 11:03:04AM +0900, William Crawford wrote:
> 
> 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.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990