On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 14:45 -0700, jdow wrote:
> for that matter, make some toast while taking a bath: electricity and
> water are actually friends. ...
Not according to Propane.
> In my very humble opinion: top posting is the worst thing anyone could
> do to destroy a conversation, especially for archives. Those that do it
> harm themselves, and the wider community. I personally don't hammer
> this down anyone's throat: I just ignore them.
Top-posting per se isn't all that bad.
A problem is that one rarely sees top-posting per se.
Usually one sees aggravated top-posting.
The top-poster almost never trims.
He even quotes the boiler-plate.
Even so, if one has the bandwidth (I do),
a single level of top-posting isn't too bad.
Often, there is more than one level of top-posting.
The problem with mail tools that start one at the beginning of the
quoted article is not that one is inclined to start typing there.
It's that it makes trimming less probable.
If his tool started him at the end of a quoted article,
this one expects that even the most fanatical top-poster
would at least trim the boilerplate.
Also, if one places one's response after its inspiration,
one is more inclined to think of things coming before it as clutter.
Taken literally bottom-posting isn't all that great either.
Ideally responses closely follow their inspirations.
Quoted material found uninspiring can be cut.
What is cut and what is not should be
the result of conscious decision-making.
If you are willing to trim, but not willing to think about it very hard,
here is a simple criterion for you:
If it caused you to reply, keep it, otherwise cut it.
> BTW: you suck.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ranbir
The preceding quotation intentionally not left blank.
--
Mike hennebry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"it stands to reason that they weren't always called the ancients."
-- Daniel Jackson
