PIREP - EnV Smart Phone

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...

That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
were directly commenting on.

If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
default to a top post???

Personally, I prefer top posting since most newsreaders organize posts into
threads and don't need the context most of the time. And if you do need it,
THEN you could scroll down.

Marco

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon wrote:
If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
default to a top post???

Because the vast majority of email programs were written by Microsoft, who
never really understood the net. There's also a laziness factor involved.

Personally, I prefer top posting since most newsreaders organize posts into
threads and don't need the context most of the time. And if you do need it,
THEN you could scroll down.

The problem with top posting is that it destriys any correlation between
your reply and what you're replying to.

Do you hold conversations backwards? Why should you ask us to read mesages
backwards?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon wrote:
If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
default to a top post???

Because the vast majority of email programs were written by Microsoft, who
never really understood the net. There's also a laziness factor involved.

Most of the online email apps are not MS-developed and I have yet to see one
default to bottom post. If you know of one, please provide a reference.

The problem with top posting is that it destriys any correlation between
your reply and what you're replying to.

Destroys? Dramatic. How? The conversation is still there--just at the bottom
of the post in case you need to refer to it.

Do you hold conversations backwards? Why should you ask us to read mesages
backwards?

Umm, no. Do you repeat what everyone says to you verbatim before you answer
them? Are peoples' memory that short that they have to read the entire
thread when reading each and every reply?

Marco

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon wrote:
Most of the online email apps are not MS-developed and I have yet to see one
default to bottom post. If you know of one, please provide a reference.

I don't. The online ones default to top posting because Microsoft screwed up
royally with outlook, and they're being bug-compatible.

The problem with top posting is that it destriys any correlation between
your reply and what you're replying to.
Destroys? Dramatic. How? The conversation is still there--just at the bottom
of the post in case you need to refer to it.

Because if you're adding a bunch of text at the top, an individual comment
is not related to what it's replying to, as the style I'm using does.

To see what I mean, imagine if I'd included my text at the top of the
message in a block. How would you know to which concept this comment was a
reply?

Do you hold conversations backwards? Why should you ask us to read mesages
backwards?
Umm, no.

Then why are you supporting the idea of posting backwards?

Do you repeat what everyone says to you verbatim before you answer them?

No. That's why I trim away what I'm not directly replying to.

Are peoples' memory that short that they have to read the entire
thread when reading each and every reply?

No. That's why I trim away whatever I'm not directly replying to.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On May 3, 6:21*am, Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-05-03, wrote:

On May 2, 3:11*pm, Martin Hotze wrote:
it needs a google-groups user to fullquote the original post just to
bring on his own one and a half line of comment ... *doh*
Hey, top posting is illegal, remenber?

That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
were directly commenting on.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Censorship is evil. You want me to censor? Which part?

Quitcher bitching, you'd think I'd killed someone or something...

On 2008-05-05, wrote:
Censorship is evil. You want me to censor? Which part?

It's not censorship. You're not removing my words from the net, or
preventing me from posting them. You're just trimming out what you're not
directly commenting on.

Quitcher bitching, you'd think I'd killed someone or something...

No, it's not that bad by a long ways. It is, however, a waste of bandwidth
and people's time, and an active encouragement for people to top-post.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
I don't. The online ones default to top posting because Microsoft screwed
up
royally with outlook, and they're being bug-compatible.

I fail to see how not conforming with top-posting on a reply will result in
a software defect.

Because if you're adding a bunch of text at the top, an individual comment
is not related to what it's replying to, as the style I'm using does.

It will be related to the text directly below it if everyone followed their
software's default location.

To see what I mean, imagine if I'd included my text at the top of the
message in a block. How would you know to which concept this comment was a
reply?

Again, it will relate to the text immediately below it.

Then why are you supporting the idea of posting backwards?

"Backwards" is subjective. Bottom-posting is against the general default
software posting location lending to the idea that your preference is
"backward."

Do you repeat what everyone says to you verbatim before you answer them?

No. That's why I trim away what I'm not directly replying to.

Trimming and top-posting are not mutually exclusive. I'm all for trimming
and people who follow their software and post at the default location should
trim as well.

Are peoples' memory that short that they have to read the entire
thread when reading each and every reply?

No. That's why I trim away whatever I'm not directly replying to.

It's easier to trim when everything you need to trim is below the text
needed for context (SHIFT-Page Down).

We can go back and forth ad nauseum but it's all about individual
preference. My preference is not the same as yours but it does not make it
"wrong." My other point is that the vast majority of relevant software does
it a certain way and I don't think they're goose-stepping just to conform
with Microsoft. It certainly won't create a software bug. Gmail top posts
and I doubt they would hesitate to do it another way if they thought it was
better.

I'll continue to bottom-post in this forum if it's the general preference
here because it simply is not that big a deal. But it *is* going against the
grain of the most of the rest of the software world.

Marco

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon wrote:
I fail to see how not conforming with top-posting on a reply will result in
a software defect.

Because lots of users are used to Outlook's broken behavior and will
consider it a bug if it's not emulated.

Because if you're adding a bunch of text at the top, an individual comment
is not related to what it's replying to, as the style I'm using does.
It will be related to the text directly below it if everyone followed their
software's default location.

*WHICH* text directly below it? There's lots of text down there.

To see what I mean, imagine if I'd included my text at the top of the
message in a block. How would you know to which concept this comment was a
reply?
Again, it will relate to the text immediately below it.

Uh, no. There are lots of words there, some of which the text in question
may be a reply to, some of which may not.

Then why are you supporting the idea of posting backwards?
"Backwards" is subjective.

I mean backwards to the order in which people read...or do your read
messages bottom to top?

Bottom-posting is against the general default software posting location
lending to the idea that your preference is "backward."

Broken defaults don't change how people are taught to read.

Trimming and top-posting are not mutually exclusive. I'm all for trimming
and people who follow their software and post at the default location should
trim as well.

Better yet, post your comment directly after what you're commenting on. That
way, your readers can tell just what your reply refers to.

It's easier to trim when everything you need to trim is below the text
needed for context (SHIFT-Page Down).

Perhaps. That doesn't matter, because replying above what you're replying to
is backwards from the way people read.

Think for a moment if books were written in the method you advocate. How
readable would they be?

We can go back and forth ad nauseum but it's all about individual
preference. My preference is not the same as yours but it does not make it
"wrong."

Top posting has been recommended against for decades. Literally.

My other point is that the vast majority of relevant software does it a
certain way and I don't think they're goose-stepping just to conform with
Microsoft.

That's exactly why they do it that way - unless they're just being lazy.

It certainly won't create a software bug. Gmail top posts and I doubt
they would hesitate to do it another way if they thought it was better.

Gmail explicitly puts the cursor at the top to avoid complaints from Outlook
users.

I'll continue to bottom-post in this forum if it's the general preference
here because it simply is not that big a deal. But it *is* going against the
grain of the most of the rest of the software world.

Microsoft put out Outlook in the mid-1990s with its broken behavior. The
standard on the Internet since at least 1985, and probably well before then
(I'm only awawre of etiquette guides going back that far), has been to do as
I'm doing he post your replies directly after what you're replying to,
and trim away all but what you want to comment on.

It is Microsoft that is going against long-standing Usenet and Internet
tradition and preferred methods. Their dominance (enhanced by their illegal
monopolistic practices) is what has spread top-posting. That doesn't make it
desirable or correct.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Marco Leon wrote:
"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
were directly commenting on.

If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
default to a top post???

Personally, I prefer top posting since most newsreaders organize posts into
threads and don't need the context most of the time. And if you do need it,
THEN you could scroll down.

Marco



There is a difference in e-mail and USENET. In USENET there is a pretty
good chance that someone might miss one or all of the previous posts.

You keep insisting something that is a preference is either correct or
incorrect so it's ridiculous to keep going with this thread.

I hope I didn't throw you off by deleting the rest of the text. I apologize
if I lost you.