On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 13:53 -0500, John Burton wrote: > Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > > [...snip...] > > > > Only if the poster did not delete unnecessary text. If the poster > > followed normal list netiquette by deleting whatever text was not > > necessary either for direct context or as part of the reply, then the > > *only* text in the message will be text which the poster thought you > > really needed to read (or reread). > Good point, unfortunately context can include a thread up to that point, > while not a problem with threaded clients, non-threaded text based > clients can have a problem. > > > > If one, several, or many people do not trim, that is a problem. But it > > does not justify changing everyone else's behavior. Every community has > > its customs and traditions, people... if you value that community, then > > honor those rules. They are there for a reason, not just for kicks. > > > > A community is a living organism that grows and evolves over time. The > "original" rules (customs & traditions) you refer to were based on a > text oriented USENET that hadn't even dreamed of the current "state of > the web" with its browsers, search engines, mail/news clients, etc. > > Consider communications between two people - At one point it was > "customary" to have a messenger memorize a message to "send" to another > person. Then it became "customary" to write the message out in longhand > using India ink and parchment. The telegraph improved the speed of > communication, but was hard to use. With the invention of the telephone, > methods of communication evolved significantly, allowing people to > actually "hear" the nuances of what the other person was trying to say. > Now with cell phones, you can instantly send pictures and talk from just > about anywhere to just about anywhere. You can even send e-mail via cell > phones. > > *Requiring* people to "trim" and "bottom-post" before you respond to > them is a bit like *requiring* them to get a sheet of parchment and > India ink and write it out long hand. You can do it if you want, but you > risk being viewed as intolerant and focused on "form" over "content". > Personally, I tend to ignore people who rant about "how" a person posts > a question instead of attempting to provide additional information > content to the discussion. > > And before you get out your flame throwers and flame me as a newbie, > I've been dealing with e-mail, mailing lists and newsgroups since before > USENET & ARPA.NET were developed, back in the bbs & uucp days... > > John I concur with what you say above. However, the one thing that those who argue for top posting fail to address it the fact that communication is ALWAYS sequential. I have yet to be impressed by the ability of someone to answer a question that has not been asked yet. We are not mind readers, nor are we able to travel through time to find out what problems are occurring in the future so we can solve them now. The same applies to any communication. Information out of context and in reversed sequence is at best confusing. Top posting tends to put it "out of context". As many others have said, those who 'always' top post will frequently get ignored by many who would otherwise help (myself included). Each can do as they choose, but the fit and acceptance within the community is determined by how well the individual conforms to the "norm" for that community.
