Jeff Vian wrote:
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.
funny the chineese read right to left and everyone else reads left to
right
Enland drives on the right, most everywhere else drives on the left
are we condeming them too?
Look people get OFF your soap box, trying to change people that don't
wantto change is silly on it's face. trying to change people to YOUR
way of doing things might be more work than it's worth.
for the most part people make choices, and if you choose to NOT help
someone just becuase of where they posted something, your being
childish. This arguement sounds like a 12 year old with a new toy.
Just a simple reminder,
We do NOT live in a perfect world.
Ghod
|
