Top or Bottom or at end of each subject.
To All: I thank those who have understood I was asking for help and not trying to engage in a flame war on this issue. As one pointed out, there are others in this group who post on the bottom, there are those who post answers after each topic and then there are the top posters! There is "supposed" to be a "convention" of sorts, but as has been pointed out, not all follow that convention! For the time being, I will top post but I will start keeping track of all those posts, by number not name, that bottom post. As for posting answers after each main point, that is one great idea! :-)
OldSarge (jboyle@harbornet.com) wrote something I wish to comment : (news:<42B6E13C.6050106@harbornet.com> posted on 20-juin-05 16:31:08)
As for posting answers after each main point, that is one great idea! :-)
It's not an idea, it's good sense. ;-) AmigaPhil, world citizen. /No MS-HTML mail please/ PGP key: 0x9C07F6C1 -----BEGIN CRYPT KEY----- The following garbage may or may not contain crypted message. At least you now know I'm an advocate for the respect of privacy. aDvtp5VAOytOLxGlntkDoFJVHSvUWlxpAHGFaMytSJpzEpMyK5FMFyFq1tIMTjEBzRHAvlIl SWOjVDFAplJIV0tPbHzxtHSYUan2MRWFacdMpypOyqOcvIzDvtVHVV1rHEERBOytW6ROHqRI vhlUy3UOSqzxVzVtCtTKz5pDV5VERLFyIvHMDfn0RI3JIEJbFLEvOHOIdOMOlvIuNVGqPt== -----END CRYPT KEY----- Locks only keep honest people out.
On Monday 20 June 2005 13:08, AmigaPhil@ping.be wrote:
OldSarge (jboyle@harbornet.com) wrote something I wish to comment : (news:<42B6E13C.6050106@harbornet.com> posted on 20-juin-05 16:31:08)
As for posting answers after each main point, that is one great idea! :-)
It's not an idea, it's good sense. ;-)
AmigaPhil, world citizen. /No MS-HTML mail please/ PGP key: 0x9C07F6C1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting -- Regards, Steven
Personally, I don't care whether one top-posts or bottom posts, but....
This forum has established over the years a convention of bottom posting.
The other thing is trimming one's replies. As a general listserv netiquette,
just trim the reply quotes to just include enough to establish a context.
Leave out signatures, et. al.
--
Jerry Feldman
At 12:44 PM 6/20/2005, Jerry Feldman wrote:
Personally, I don't care whether one top-posts or bottom posts, but.... This forum has established over the years a convention of bottom posting.
The other thing is trimming one's replies. As a general listserv netiquette, just trim the reply quotes to just include enough to establish a context. Leave out signatures, et. al. Yeah i agree jerry I hate it when there is long preamble of previous stuff quoted. I try to just quote what is needed keep it short an to the point on quotes.
I have been guity of top posting but then on some lists that is ok. I can care less which one is used. jack
Jack Malone wrote:
At 12:44 PM 6/20/2005, Jerry Feldman wrote:
Personally, I don't care whether one top-posts or bottom posts, but.... This forum has established over the years a convention of bottom posting.
The other thing is trimming one's replies. As a general listserv netiquette, just trim the reply quotes to just include enough to establish a context. Leave out signatures, et. al.
Yeah i agree jerry I hate it when there is long preamble of previous stuff quoted. I try to just quote what is needed keep it short an to the point on quotes.
I have been guity of top posting but then on some lists that is ok. I can care less which one is used.
jack
I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem. Jim
Op maandag 20 juni 2005 20:00, schreef Jim Sabatke:
I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem.
With kmail you can just select the text on which you want to reply with the mouse. Than hit 'reply' or even better reply to list ('l') and only the marked text will be included in the replied email. Very very convenient... -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
With kmail you can just select the text on which you want to reply with the mouse. Than hit 'reply' or even better reply to list ('l') and only the marked text will be included in the replied email. Very very convenient... wow, thanks, I learned a new command today!
On Mon June 20 2005 2:53 pm, Richard Bos wrote: that reply to list is very nice, takes all the guesswork out of replies! I can't tell you how many times I MEANT to reply to the list, and it sent a private email message... now, if it could just select the correct account to send from... I have the folder properties setup correctly for the account I want to send from, but kmail seems to default to the last account you sent from, it never picks up the current folder settings. Bug? SUSE 9.3 kmail 1.8 on KDE 3.4.0 level "b" -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.comcast.net/~p.cartwright/wsb/key.asc
On Monday 20 June 2005 15:03, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Mon June 20 2005 2:53 pm, Richard Bos wrote:
With kmail you can just select the text on which you want to reply with the mouse. Than hit 'reply' or even better reply to list ('l') and only the marked text will be included in the replied email. Very very convenient...
wow, thanks, I learned a new command today! that reply to list is very nice, takes all the guesswork out of replies! I can't tell you how many times I MEANT to reply to the list, and it sent a private email message... now, if it could just select the correct account to send from... I have the folder properties setup correctly for the account I want to send from, but kmail seems to default to the last account you sent from, it never picks up the current folder settings. Bug? SUSE 9.3 kmail 1.8 on KDE 3.4.0 level "b"
No, But you must set it up. What do you mean by "never picks up the current folder settings"? Do you, like me, filter the list mail into a separate folder? Not sure what you mean. You can set the properties of the folder to mail from whatever account you specify by right clicking on the folder itself and setting the properties. What I normally do, when reading a post from the list that I want to reply to, is go to the top Messages > Reply to mailing list and "click on it. That sets up the address to the list and the email account which is valid for the list. Then edit the message and my reply, and click Send. Voila ! Done! All correct This can also be done by right clicking on the folder itself and clicking on Reply to mailing list. Hope I understood your question/comment and have been helpful. Bob S. Bob S.
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 20:53 +0200, Richard Bos wrote:
Op maandag 20 juni 2005 20:00, schreef Jim Sabatke:
I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem.
With kmail you can just select the text on which you want to reply with the mouse. Than hit 'reply' or even better reply to list ('l') and only the marked text will be included in the replied email. Very very convenient...
Same thing with evolution. cntr-l for list reply. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
Jim Sabatke wrote: I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but
there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem.
Who cares about top or bottom? Begging the question is the real problem. It does not mean "invite the question". Begging the question is a fool's debating trick. Like lifting yourself by your bootstraps. Note - I didn't say bootstrapping - which as we all know is now a perfectly valid conventional use of that term in our context. BTQ is relying logically on something which still needs to be proved (or successfully argued in a debate). This list urgently needs a convention on BTQ. Do you want it to mean ... 1 implying or inviting an unasked question 2 relying on an unproven argument to prove that argument My vote would be for the latter meaning because we are all computer people and we ought to be rigorously logical. Mike
Jim
Look guys, my last email (below) was a joke. I'm just bored with top and bottom stuff. Can we can it? Mike I wrote:
Who cares about top or bottom?
Begging the question is the real problem. It does not mean "invite the question". Begging the question is a fool's debating trick. Like lifting yourself by your bootstraps. Note - I didn't say bootstrapping - which as we all know is now a perfectly valid conventional use of that term in our context.
BTQ is relying logically on something which still needs to be proved (or successfully argued in a debate).
This list urgently needs a convention on BTQ. Do you want it to mean ...
1 implying or inviting an unasked question
2 relying on an unproven argument to prove that argument
My vote would be for the latter meaning because we are all computer people and we ought to be rigorously logical.
Mike
Jim
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 11:12 +1000, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
Jim Sabatke wrote: I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but
there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem.
Who cares about top or bottom?
You should use was is the accepted practice for this list when replying to a question from this list. On this list it has been the accepted practice to trim your replies and place your response after the part you are referring to. Look at the FAQ for this list. Also, please DO NOT change the subject unless you are the OP. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
On 21/06/05, Mike Dewhirst
My vote would be for the latter meaning because we are all computer people and we ought to be rigorously logical.
Mike
Ah, but we also use Linux and are human so logic generalyy then goes out of the window... *yes, it's a joke too* :-))))) Agreed, let's 'can' the pointless argument about top and bottom posting. Give it 6 months and it start all over again anyway :-( -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR
On Monday June 20 2005 9:12 pm, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
Jim Sabatke wrote: I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but
there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem.
Who cares about top or bottom?
Begging the question is the real problem. It does not mean "invite the question". Begging the question is a fool's debating trick. Like lifting yourself by your bootstraps. Note - I didn't say bootstrapping - which as we all know is now a perfectly valid conventional use of that term in our context.
BTQ is relying logically on something which still needs to be proved (or successfully argued in a debate).
This list urgently needs a convention on BTQ. Do you want it to mean ...
1 implying or inviting an unasked question
2 relying on an unproven argument to prove that argument
I'm with you. We who practise logic have a responsibility to respect its lexicon. "Question" in BTQ doesn't refer to an interrogative as it does in "raising the question", but rather it refers to the proposition under debate, as "putting the question" does in parliamentary usage. Those who use "beg the question" as if it were synonymous with "raise the question" are following the mindless herd who mistakenly believe this to be a more sophisticated usage. It isn't. It just relects another popular but ignorant misconception. Charly Baker
Charly Baker wrote:
I'm with you. We who practise logic have a responsibility to respect its lexicon. "Question" in BTQ doesn't refer to an interrogative as it does in "raising the question", but rather it refers to the proposition under debate, as "putting the question" does in parliamentary usage. Those who use "beg the question" as if it were synonymous with "raise the question" are following the mindless herd who mistakenly believe this to be a more sophisticated usage. It isn't. It just relects another popular but ignorant misconception.
Charly Baker
Are you referring to our much revered politicians and even more revered celibrities, media moguls, bishops, movie stars, captains of industry and the like as "the mindless herd"? I've heard of a troop of apes, but never a herd, so that's totally unfounded --- I take that back after contemplating it for a microsecond longer. Spoken English is often a hotch-potch of whatever drivel comes out of the mouth, OK as long as it has a certain arrangement of say-nothings, but it's based on useage. In either case cited above, none of us will be seen rushing for a thesaurus in order to understand what is meant. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
* Sid Boyce
Spoken English is often a hotch-potch of whatever drivel comes out of the mouth, OK as long as it has a certain arrangement of say-nothings, but it's based on useage. In either case cited above, none of us will be seen rushing for a thesaurus in order to understand what is meant.
Commonly known as: Lawyer speak -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 14:45, Charly Baker wrote:
On Monday June 20 2005 9:12 pm, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
Jim Sabatke wrote: I feel the same, and just follow each lists' rules (if it has any), but
there are times I really do like top posting. That is when there is a very large included part of the previous message that should have been snipped and a short top post. It's a lot easier than scrolling through all the extra stuff. Of course that begs the question, isn't that a snipping problem.
Who cares about top or bottom?
Begging the question is the real problem. It does not mean "invite the question". Begging the question is a fool's debating trick. Like lifting yourself by your bootstraps. Note - I didn't say bootstrapping - which as we all know is now a perfectly valid conventional use of that term in our context.
BTQ is relying logically on something which still needs to be proved (or successfully argued in a debate).
This list urgently needs a convention on BTQ. Do you want it to mean ...
1 implying or inviting an unasked question
2 relying on an unproven argument to prove that argument
Yes, number 2. You're dead right. BTQ is a logical fallacy, not a posh way of saying 'makes us ask'. Well done Charly.
I'm with you. We who practise logic have a responsibility to respect its lexicon. "Question" in BTQ doesn't refer to an interrogative as it does in "raising the question", but rather it refers to the proposition under debate, as "putting the question" does in parliamentary usage. Those who use "beg the question" as if it were synonymous with "raise the question" are following the mindless herd who mistakenly believe this to be a more sophisticated usage. It isn't. It just relects another popular but ignorant misconception.
Charly Baker
On Monday 20 June 2005 17:31, OldSarge wrote:
To All: I thank those who have understood I was asking for help and not trying to engage in a flame war on this issue. As one pointed out, there are others in this group who post on the bottom, there are
Think about this. If you and I are in a private conversation, then I would guess top posting is OK as I already know what I said to you and I am only looking for the answer. However this list isn't personal. It is read by many. So, the difference is this is much like a book of sorts. Lots if pages, lots of topics. When you read a book or magazine, do you read it from the bottom up? No, I don't think so. So why should a person scroll down to the bottom of the message to find out what the original problem was? Why not leave the pertinent parts at the top, and write below? This is what is done in books and magazines. Look at Linux Journal/Tech Help as an example. Are the questions at the bottom with the answers above? Don't think so. That's what this list is all about. Help with tech type questions. It only seems logical that the question should be followed by the answer.
those who post answers after each topic and then there are the top posters! There is "supposed" to be a "convention" of sorts, but as has been pointed out, not all follow that convention! For the time being, I will top post but I will start keeping track of all those posts, by number not name, that bottom post. As for posting answers after each main point, that is one great idea! :-)
Now, you understand why. -- Powered by SuSE 9.3 Kernel 2.6.11 KDE 3.4.0 Kmail 1.8 For Mondo/Mindi backup support go to http://www.mikenjane.net/~mike 8:36pm up 4 days 4:38, 5 users, load average: 2.06, 2.12, 2.14
On Monday 20 June 2005 19:42, mike wrote:
On Monday 20 June 2005 17:31, OldSarge wrote:
To All: I thank those who have understood I was asking for help and not trying to engage in a flame war on this issue. As one pointed out, there are others in this group who post on the bottom, there are
Think about this. If you and I are in a private conversation, then I would guess top posting is OK as I already know what I said to you and I am only looking for the answer.
However this list isn't personal. It is read by many. So, the difference is this is much like a book of sorts. Lots if pages, lots of topics.
When you read a book or magazine, do you read it from the bottom up? No, I don't think so. So why should a person scroll down to the bottom of the message to find out what the original problem was? Why not leave the pertinent parts at the top, and write below? This is what is done in books and magazines. Look at Linux Journal/Tech Help as an example. Are the questions at the bottom with the answers above? Don't think so.
Since we are dealing with questions and answers, I am more than happy if the subject is informative and the first thing I read is the solution. If I need to know more then I'll read further down (or previous mailings if I haven't been following the thread). Sometimes bottom posting can be tedious. Sometimes cropped statements are so short, I wonder what is being discussed especially if the subject is not descriptive. I prefer top posting but am happy to go along with the general mood of the list. Sometimes I wonder though, about the "aggression" towards those who don't comply. Eddie
That's what this list is all about. Help with tech type questions. It only seems logical that the question should be followed by the answer.
(Ducks and Covers) Perhaps what we need is a new mail reader/filter/view that take a threaded message, does a diff or something on the previous message and presents the reader with a nicely formatted view with new content at top, bottom or unmodified. Any programmers feeling bored? ;-)
participants (19)
-
AmigaPhil＠ping.be -
B. Stia -
Charly Baker -
eddieleprince -
Edwin Heath -
Fergus Wilde -
Jack Malone -
Jerry Feldman -
Jim Sabatke -
Ken Schneider -
Kevanf1 -
mike -
Mike Dewhirst -
OldSarge -
Patrick Shanahan -
Paul Cartwright -
Richard Bos -
Sid Boyce -
Steven T. Hatton