It would appear that on Jul 1, Phil Schaffner did say:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 13:21 -0400, Ghod wrote:
> > I prefer top posting, to each his/her own. I don't want to have to
> > scroll 2-3-4-5 pages down to read what the last person wrote, nor
> > re-read the entire thing. you can always go past the post and read
> > what
> > it was in refernce to. and keeps those who have already read the
> > enitre
> > thing from having to scroll, more need not scroll than do.
> >
> >
> > your OPINION is only yours.
>
> It is, however, pretty widely shared.
>
> Try a google on 'top-posting'. :-)
>
> Phil (reformed-top-poster)
Whereas I'm stuck in the middle between the two points of view...
between "top & bottom", my personal preference would be top posting
except that when I've learned that top posting to newsgroups & mailing
lists tends to annoy more of the people who might otherwise help. & I
acknowledge that whether I like it or not bottom posting is the generally
accepted netiquette.
Though I might argue that it's *MUCH* more important that people trim
down the quoted text(s) so that you don't waste the bandwidth of
effectively reposting the entire thread each time someone adds a line or
two. In which case top/bottom really wouldn't matter that much.
I've noticed that both top & bottom posters often forget to trim...
I do think that if top/bottom posting is really an issue then the links
embedded in the mailing-list messages or in a (monthly?) reminder should
include a link to an official list policy statement or faq that clearly
spells it out. And given the abundance of email software that makes top
posting easier, it should be a prominent item in any such document,
which in turn should be easy to find even for extreme newbies...
Otherwise I find it hard to feel like it should be treated as much of an
issue...
Now about a prior item in this thread that both Phil, & Ghod appeared to
agree on...
"Most people should learn the REAL way to make changes<snip>"
&
"<snip>I heartily agree<snip>"
I tend to agree as well, But I note, 'sometimes' the non-gui
configuration files/methods are a bit obscure, or poorly commented
making it hard for the uninitiated to figure it out. Who can blame
newbies who just need to get something working for just learning to use
the easy to find/use gui?
Too bad the gui don't also point out the pathnames to the relevant
configuration & documentation files, and invite their users to become
familiar with them. Preferably the good gui would also include suitable
comments (where possible) as to what each change does in the
configuration files.
Even as it is though, sometimes the gui can be useful, even educational.
When I know what file to edit, but don't understand what to put in it to
get the effect I need, I sometimes copy the configuration file before
using the gui to make changes, and then compare the new file against the
old copy to see if I can figure out what the gui did...
--
| --- ___
| <0> <-> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
| ^ J(tWdy)P
| ~\___/~ <<jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx>>
(conforming-to-netiquette-[under-protest]-"bottom"-{sigh}-poster)
