* Rob Sell [03-04-04 16:31]:

My my James, a bit cranky today? Or did you ascend the throne to list moderator when we weren't looking? :-)

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality. And you jump on the wrong individual. James has done more for the list and for SuSE, than most here, and his efforts are appreciated. You just hit the bit-bucket. Climb in a hole. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org

* Vince Littler [03-05-04 13:07]:

Please lighten up

You are baiting me or a fool and I will reserve judgement on the latter as history indicates the former, but will have no more communication with *you*, public or private. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # us1244711

HEY !!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! Look at the subject title. That tells me it is either spam or pure B.S. No, I have not seen it and I don't want to see it. Go away. Bruce Marshall wrote:

On Friday 05 March 2004 04:35 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

Your loss.....

(top posted and full quotes under)

...

* Vince Littler [03-05-04 13:07]:

...

Please lighten up

You are baiting me or a fool and I will reserve judgement on the latter as history indicates the former, but will have no more communication with *you*, public or private. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # us1244711

-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 03/05/04 16:49 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Above all else - sky."

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- If you are told 'It can't be done', make sure it comes from a competent source.

On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 14:21, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:

On Friday 05 March 2004 4:53 pm, fkamp@comcast.net wrote:

...

HEY !!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

Look at the subject title.

That tells me it is either spam or pure B.S.

No, I have not seen it and I don't want to see it.

What I found irksome -- and inexplicable -- about the original posting was that it consisted of a link with no description of what was to be found at the end of the link. The actual article was fairly interesting -- about some evidence that Microsoft has been funneling funds to SCO in order to cause legal problems for Linux -- but I still felt put upon that I wasn't given any information that would tell me if I wanted to pursue the link.

Yes, probably had a number just delete it not knowing... Probably got sent out without much thought into the subject line or contents, its pretty nasty evidence that would tip a lot of fence sitters into really disliking MSFT, if they wanted more proof that the company is rotten.

It is an antisocial practice to post links without any description of what they link to. Is there anyone here -- anyone at all -- who can offer even a shred of defense for the practice? Whether the subject is off-topic or not is a separate question.

Its just an e-mail, who cares really...Yes it would be have been better to offer a shred of information, but would not go as far as anti-social, just may have been too hasty. This thread imho, is making a mole hole hill out of an ant hill...A gentle correction in not being so hasty with links or subject lines would be fine, even better off list. People can get defensive, especially in public. Matt

I am a newcomer to this list. I subscribed about a week ago. So far I have seen little to justify my listening to the traffic, but this last little jewel (quoted below) is the last straw. I was under the impression that this list catered to adults interested in suse-linux. It looks more like a haven for kids intent on impressing peers by acting like idiots. This is not something I need, thanks. Martin wrote:

--- Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

...

My my James, a bit cranky today? Or did you ascend

* Rob Sell [03-04-04 16:31]: the throne to list

...

moderator when we weren't looking? :-)

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality.

Excuse my ignorance but would you mind to enlighten me on what is 'top-post and full-quote-under' and how does it relate to 'windoze mentality' so I can avoid it in the future in case I'm also affected individual. I use Windows and Linux/Unix and have never heard about it.

Thank you for your patience.

Martin

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- If you are told 'It can't be done', make sure it comes from a competent source.

Hi I agree.. And even if I should *once again* start a war, I just can't understand why some are so picky about how people write their reply. I personally HATE when I need to scroll down to see the respond. I actually ignore the thread, and go to next one. It is so easy to read a thread, when I need just to select the next reply, and immediatly I would see the respond on top of the message. So, those who says that bottom-post is the only right way, who are they to say that I need to scroll down in every message? Top-posting is the one I use, and like to read them also. If they say it is Windoze-mentality, they do not belong here... Majority here does not hate M$ as much as they do, if at all. They need to check their attitude. Hating M$ does not help in any way! If they insist to use bottom-posting, they get my ignorance, nothing more.. I don't try to teach them how I would like them to behave. I simply ignore those replies. Why can't they do the same? We are individuals with different kind of things we like or hate. Here a newcomer is like a child, and the fact is, that the truth comes from childs mouth. So some people should learn something from his words! Once I did unsubscribe from this list for almost a year, and the reason was this same war, that were filling almost half of the messages for a period. Sorry for this rant, but I just couldn't resist anymore. Jaska.

I am a newcomer to this list.

So far I have seen little to justify my listening to the traffic, but this last little jewel (quoted below) is the last straw.

I was under the impression that this list catered to adults interested in suse-linux. It looks more like a haven for kids intent on impressing peers by acting like idiots.

This is not something I need, thanks.

...

...

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality.

Hi So to put it simply, if I do not agree with some individuals, piss off.. This is not something I would expect from a Linux-group. Jaska. Terence McCarthy kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika Lauantai 6. Maaliskuuta 2004 23:48):

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:08:07 +0200

jaska wrote:

...

And even if I should *once again* start a war, I just can't understand why some are so picky about how people write their reply.

I personally HATE when I need to scroll down to see the respond. I actually ignore the thread, and go to next one.

...

...

...

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality.

You apparently haven't understood what the comments (immediately aboove) are about.

As for "picky", it's about social manners and what is acceptable to a particular group. If you really can't put up with the way most of us do things in this group, don't use the list.

If you want to remain, please conform to what the list expects, that's all.

Terence

Hi Ben I do understand Your meaning. And like You also, I just ignore the bottom-posters reply, because I can't be bothered to scroll down in every message, I want to save my scroll-wheel :-) One thing comes to my mind when talking about netiquette.. Do everything stay static all the time? Isn't there even a change for changes? Should we have this that we have now, to stay de-facto for coming centuries? It is my strong opinion (along with many other users) is that top-posting is more readable, more easy to create. It is more natural for e-mails. In other places bottom-posting is more natural, and should be used in those places. If I watch for example Lexx-films, I put a new episode in to VCR, and I really don't need a long or short version of "what happened last time", I do remember it. Like with e-mails threads, I did read the prior message 1 second ago, so I want the news stuff first, not the repeating headers... Jaska. Ben Rosenberg kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika Lauantai 6. Maaliskuuta 2004 23:51):

* jaska (jaska@ritari.fi) [040306 13:27]:

...

Hi

So to put it simply, if I do not agree with some individuals, piss off..

This is not something I would expect from a Linux-group.

Boy, you should subscribe to some of the lists my wife uses..such as her quilting, knitting or soap making lists. If you go against what the list members and maintainers dictate there then you will see a flame war from those women that makes the things on this list seem small and calm. So please don't do that " *sigh* It's a Linux Zealot thing again.. " because you'd be naive and quite silly. All lists have rules and norms which are expected to be followed. Not that I give a shit how you post or if you post but please don't do that it's a Linux thing because it's not and top posting isn't a Windows thing...it's a I haven't read the RFC's and Netiquette docs thing. Some people just get their panties in a bunch over silly shit and you'll just have to deal with the almighty D key. :)

-- Linux User #147972 ---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org -- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* jaska (jaska@ritari.fi) [040306 13:27]:

...

Hi

So to put it simply, if I do not agree with some individuals, piss off..

This is not something I would expect from a Linux-group.

Boy, you should subscribe to some of the lists my wife uses..such as her quilting, knitting or soap making lists. If you go against what the list members and maintainers dictate there then you will see a flame war from those women that makes the things on this list seem small and calm. So please don't do that " *sigh* It's a Linux Zealot thing again.. " because you'd be naive and quite silly. All lists have rules and norms which are expected to be followed. Not that I give a shit how you post or if you post but please don't do that it's a Linux thing because it's not and top posting isn't a Windows thing...it's a I haven't read the RFC's and Netiquette docs thing. Some people just get their panties in a bunch over silly shit and you'll just have to deal with the almighty D key. :)

Having read "Ann Landers" and "Dear Abby" for many years, I often found it amazing what some people (usually women) would argue over. One topic that comes to mind was the great discussion about which way to hang a roll of toilet paper! Some people really do need a life. ;-)

Actually this is exactly what I expected from some individuals. They just can't handle the thought that there is people who do not think like they do. Should the purpose of this list to help others, and not to flame them as they come in the first time? Jaska.

...

So to put it simply, if I do not agree with some individuals, piss off..

As for your first sentence- well, you said it!

Terence

jaska wrote:

Actually this is exactly what I expected from some individuals. They just can't handle the thought that there is people who do not think like they do.

Should the purpose of this list to help others, and not to flame them as they come in the first time?

Jaska.

...

...

So to put it simply, if I do not agree with some individuals, piss off..

...

As for your first sentence- well, you said it!

Terence

jaska wrote:

Hi

So to put it simply, if I do not agree with some individuals, piss off..

This is not something I would expect from a Linux-group.

Jaska.

Terence McCarthy kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika Lauantai 6. Maaliskuuta 2004 23:48):

...

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:08:07 +0200

jaska wrote:

...

And even if I should *once again* start a war, I just can't understand why some are so picky about how people write their reply.

I personally HATE when I need to scroll down to see the respond. I actually ignore the thread, and go to next one.

...

...

...

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality.

You apparently haven't understood what the comments (immediately aboove) are about.

As for "picky", it's about social manners and what is acceptable to a particular group. If you really can't put up with the way most of us do things in this group, don't use the list.

If you want to remain, please conform to what the list expects, that's all.

Terence

Yes your assumption is correct, Fit in or F_ _ _ off. Not expecting it from a linux group is hogwash. This is a democratic list and if the majority of the subscribers want to top post then we will. As it stands at the moment however, we have chosen to bottom post. -- The Little Helper ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Licenced ex-Windows user (apart from Quicken) Registered Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 ========================================================================

On Saturday 06 March 2004 04:48 pm, Terence McCarthy wrote:

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:08:07 +0200

jaska wrote:

...

And even if I should *once again* start a war, I just can't understand why some are so picky about how people write their reply.

I personally HATE when I need to scroll down to see the respond. I actually ignore the thread, and go to next one.

...

...

...

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality.

You apparently haven't understood what the comments (immediately aboove) are about.

As for "picky", it's about social manners and what is acceptable to a particular group. If you really can't put up with the way most of us do things in this group, don't use the list.

If you want to remain, please conform to what the list expects, that's all.

Terence

And what rules does the list go by?? And who made those rules?? Each to his own way of doing things is the only rule I can see... Life is too short to nit-pick every little thing. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 03/06/04 17:54 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." - Mark Twain

And what rules does the list go by?? And who made those rules??

The rules have grown up over decades of use of email and usenet for discussions. The rules have been made, such as they are, by the hackers who have gone before us. And they were right.

Each to his own way of doing things is the only rule I can see... Life is too short to nit-pick every little thing.

Then you won't make many friends here. I'm quite an easy going guy, but I like politeness, and I like etiquette, because that way people demonstrate they value the community they are seeking to participate in. If were to join a Country Club (heaven forbid), the first I would do would not be to insist they change/abandon half of their rules because they didn't suit me. (The first thing I would do would be to order the driest martini the bar-tender could produce). As always, ESR has a fairly definitive word on this in the Jargon Lexicon: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/TOFU.html and http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html. Of course, had the SCO discussion gone to the OT list (SCO discussion was one of the reasons it was established) in the first place, none of this would have happened. I need coffee. -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 9.0). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org

Hi Vince I agree with You! I'm not native english, so I just can't put my thought in writing as good as You can. I do feel pitty towards the top-posters, that gets flamed almost immediatly when they post their first question here. Some people top-post, some botton-post, others something in between. A simple thread is easy to read when top-posting, because one do remeber the previous posts, thus is able to follow it by reading only the answer in the new reply. But in more complex question, that has many points, requires something like posting almost line-by-line in order to answer the multitude of questions. I like to read top-posting, and there is no way I could learn to like bottom-posting more. But still if the thread is interesting, I do scroll down and search the beginning of the reply. By searching I mean that there is no fixed amount of lines from the previous post, thus it requires scrolling and searching for the first line without the quote-char in front. And even if there is just couple of line quoted in the beginning, the answer is not "right there" in the top. Earlier someone said, that in the message archive the lates is always on the bottom. This is true for the subject, and it should be like that with subjects and other similar places. But then when it comes to reading, while reading the following post, the answer should be on top, so that one should not need to scroll down searching for the reply. And if jumped directly to latest message with the solution, the question is at the bottom, and search is needed. But that is only because one jumped to the last message directly... I'm not sure if get my thought written so that people understand my meaning...? So there is not only one solution to everything. I have felt many times, that people who are defending bottom-posting, do require that no matter what. I do feel strongly against that attitude, but have been quiet about that for a long time. When I saw the newcomer leaving us saying that he won't tolerate being flamed after just one week on the list, I just had to open my mouth. I hope that the outcoming of this is that people do get more tolerant, and perhaps quide the newcomers more softly, letting them to get used to this list, and maybe even learn by themselves how to write and find their own way of writing clear messages. I agree that there has been posters that needs some advice (like writing without periods, all in one long sentense without any brakes or line-feeds), but do they need to be shot? Everyone has been a beginner. Also by giving a little space to newcomers, more questions will be answered, and bandwidth saved. Jaska.

For me, this actually exposes very neatly an underlying social metaphor behind the whole top vs bottom posting argument.

Essentially, there are those on this list who view it as a Country Club, who are insisting on imposing their rules on others and making out that it is unacceptable to top-post, that it is farting in an elevator, that it is passing the port the wrong way, that it is the route to social exclusion. In short, they are trying to exercise control over other people by insisting that the list belongs to the bottom posters.

Vince Littler wrote:

Logic tells me that bottom posting is preferable - not that I always follow it. But if it is necessary to explain the Logic year-in, year-out, that Logic cannot be strong enough. That too is Logic.

I find there are some situations where bottom posting is preferable and other top posting. Perhaps this is one of those situations where there is not only one "true" way, but something that changes with context.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:40:26 -0500, James Knott wrote:

Vince Littler wrote:

...

Logic tells me that bottom posting is preferable - not that I always follow it. But if it is necessary to explain the Logic year-in, year-out, that Logic cannot be strong enough. That too is Logic.

Unless those to whom you are explaining it to are new and unfamiliar with the medium. It can safely be said that top posting is a common error. I find very few people with much experience in e-mail discussions who do this or defend it. I do, however, find people who think somehow that their word is the be-all, end-all pronouncement doing this, as if their words were a gift from whatever higher power they choose to worship to all us less-enlightened folks. They can't be bothered to respond specifically to points raised in context. I also find people who expect me to remember the context to which they're replying. As if I didn't receive a thousand e-mails a day (not counting spam). As if the subject they choose to talk about is the only one that matters in the whole [multiple expletives omitted] world. So gosh, I guess I think top-posting is generally arrogant.

I find there are some situations where bottom posting is preferable and other top posting. Perhaps this is one of those situations where there is not only one "true" way, but something that changes with context.

With a strong preference for "bottom" posting. The arguments about functionality are, for me, crucial. Sometimes someone will express a number of concepts in a single sentence, and I need to respond to each of these in turn. This cannot be done, in context, with a top post. And when you extract statements from their context, you will almost inevitably misrepresent them. Misrepresenting your opponents or others' statements is not an ethical way of arguing. Context is crucial. And responding in context is only fair. Though I can't quite explain why, fair arguments somehow carry a lot more weight with me. They just do. It's hard to think of a specific case where I've thought it appropriate to top post. But I remember that it has happened. When I've done this, it's always been with some sort of an introduction, and then I say something to the effect that specific comments follow, and I follow the bottom posting style thenceforth. The real argument for top posting, as a general rule, seems to be laziness. I mostly see it done with replies that have nothing to do with the posts to which they respond, as the sender couldn't be bothered to retrieve the address to which he's sending, and just opted to mess up my threading instead. I don't see it done in any serious discussions, except by, and there's no nice way to put this, idiots who want to ramble on about something of a variable relevance to the topic and who misrepresent the statements they respond to. To be honest, I don't see a lot of top posting, these days. Perhaps because I ignore those who do it. -- David Benfell, LCP benfell@parts-unknown.org --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

Bruce Marshall wrote:

Each to his own way of doing things is the only rule I can see... Life is too short to nit-pick every little thing. I sure hope I never meet you on the roads here in Georgia. This sounds too much like the drivers here and we already have enough of them :-)

Damon Register

Terence McCarthy wrote:

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:08:07 +0200 jaska wrote:

...

And even if I should *once again* start a war, I just can't understand why some are so picky about how people write their reply.

I personally HATE when I need to scroll down to see the respond. I actually ignore the thread, and go to next one.

...

...

...

...

You top-post and full-quote-under. Haven't lost the windoz mentality.

You apparently haven't understood what the comments (immediately aboove) are about.

As for "picky", it's about social manners and what is acceptable to a particular group. If you really can't put up with the way most of us do things in this group, don't use the list.

If you want to remain, please conform to what the list expects, that's all.

I'm here for the technical content and try to put up with some of the quirks of this list as best I can. However, having said that, I find the reply to OP default to be irritating. I'm in a few other mail lists and web site forums and also read newsgroups. In addition to that, in the past I also participated in the old BBS and Compuserve forums. In each and every one of those, the default has always been to reply to the group as a whole and to the OP as the exception. For some idiotic reason, this list does the opposite. And yes I have read the stated sources and failed to find a satifactory reason for this policy. If many people are complaining about the way a list is run, perhaps a reveiw is necessary, rather than telling people to accept it or leave.

The 2004-03-07 at 09:10 -0500, James Knott wrote:

each and every one of those, the default has always been to reply to the group as a whole and to the OP as the exception. For some idiotic reason, this list does the opposite. And yes I have read the stated sources and failed to find a satifactory reason for this policy.

There is a technical reason for that. Assume the list was as you said, that a reply would automatically go to the list. Now, think, in unix and linux there are many programs handling email, many things could be misconfigured. Suppose, for example, you misconfigure the "vacation" program, and to every email you receive from the list, say, a hundred per day, your machine automatically replies that you are on vacation. This reply would go back to SuSE, and posted to the thousand listers, including you, and trigger again your vacation program, and... (Programmer found dead on the shower. On his hand he had a shampoo bottle with this label: "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" :-p ). Simply making the default reply go to the original poster breaks the loop, or at least, limits its effect to just a few users.

If many people are complaining about the way a list is run, perhaps a reveiw is necessary, rather than telling people to accept it or leave.

No, this policy of reply will not change, forget it. There are sound technical reasons behind it. Rather, use your MTA appropriately (or configure procmail). -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Hi all, It's been rather fun watching all this, but I feel a need to add something as a person that has been correct about TOFU several times. Ya, I know I shouldn't top post, but there are times I forget. The problem that I see is that it's almost a race to see who the first person will be to correct me. It seems like some people think, "oh a top-poster! I'm gonna correct him before anyone else does." Did they address my question???? No, but they sure felt like they could take the time to correct me on top-posting. The reason I top post every now and then (mistakenly) is because top-posting is a normal course of email. "WHAT!?? No, it's not! The proper way is to follow up an email on the bottom".....I can hear many people say this right now. But, it's not. While it may be proper netiquette, it's not normal. Those of us that deal with the world on a daily basis know everyone (figurative) top-posts. I deal with network admins, technical project managers every day, and everyone top posts. I can think of only one email thread I've dealt with in the past year where everything was followed up on the bottom of the email. It's very normal to top post on a daily basis. The key is to remember to switch when responding to this group (or others...but I don't subscribe to others so I don't know). I think the key is to not go out of your way to let folks now not to top post, but rather, if you are going to answer anyone's question, do it at that time. Don't make it a race to see who the first one is going to be to tell the person not to TOFU. Time for another Guinness. Tom

...

It's been rather fun watching all this,

That has to be a plus, Tom!

...

The reason I top post every now and then (mistakenly) is because top-posting is a normal course of email.

I am on a list for a Dos program which is also used by blind people. The argument that I hear from them is that a reader program needs a lot of unnecessary time for the reading of a text or a part of a text which these users have already remembered when they start reading a tread. I do not know if we on the list have Susers with a reading program or with a braille program but think that we should look at this subject again if there would be people that we can help in that way.

Hi, those discussions about top or bottom posting, TOFU etc. are surely eating up some bandwith here. What amazes me is that all the arguing seems to miss the point. This is not really about the convenience of reading the answer without scrolling or about how it is "usually" done (an argument used by both parties). If that was all that is to say about top or bottom posting, than it wouldn't be worthwhile to start arguing in the first place. And I guess it is exactly this what most top posters are saying. I hope the following example makes it more clear why bottom posting (together with propper quoting) offers functionality to both the writer as well as the reader that bottom posting doesn't. All the arguing seems to compare the two ways of posting as beeing to choice between the following two versions: --- snip -----

what the first person said about this and that he made a suggestion and had a question

and that would be the answer of the bottom poster --- snap ---- and --- snip ----- that would be the answer of the top poster

what the first person said about this and that he made a suggestion and had a question --- snap ----

Not a big deal either way. But how would you - as a bottom poster try and achieve the equivalent to --- snip -----

what the first person said about this

a comment about this

and that

a comment about that

he made a suggestion and had a question

an answer --- snap ---- In real life this can become difficult (for a top poster) if not impossible to achieve. Of course it depends on the coplexity of the prvious mail(s). And of course it becomes more and more difficult the more persons are involved. As a bottom poster I have no trouble in adding to that discusion without loosing the context: --- snip -----

...

what the first person said about this

a comment about this

my comment about this.

...

and that

a comment about that

...

he made a suggestion

I could easily say something about the initial posters suggestion.

...

and had a question

an answer

and add to that. --- snap ----- One of the main reasons against bottom posting as I take it from this discusion seems to be that it is is awkward to scroll down to the new contribution. And that's an important point: one should trim down the quoted text to only those parts that the answer is actually referring to. So the last example should really have been: --- snip -----

...

what the first person said about this

a comment about this

my comment about this. [...]

...

he made a suggestion

I could easily say something about the initial posters suggestion.

...

and had a question

an answer

and add to that. --- snap ----- So, not only one should bottom post but one should also avoid quoting parts of the previous mail that are not relevant to the answer. These techniques might not be so relevant when it comes to a discussion between two people. But on a list where quite often 5 or more people are involved, bottom posting *really* is the only way to achieve the goal that the discussion stays comprehensible for the reader. If I didn't manage to convince you, please take the time and have a look through some longer and more complex threads that have been made out of bottom posts. Try to think how this could have been done with top posting. Greetings from Bremen hartmut

On Sunday 07 March 2004 12:07 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

I haven't been following any of the top post vs. correct post arguments. But since it has been so blatantly addressed, I will add my observations on the matter.

1) Traditional Internet etiquette is that, under normal circumstances, the new content of an e-mail message follows the quoted content. Indeed, some will refer you to RFC 1855. RFC 1855 says "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

Something being a tradition does not mean that it is the only acceptable way to do something

2) That's the way we do it here. To come to a mailing list and disregard the established norms is rude. It is the way most do it. Harmut makes the case for it quite logically. But I cannot see that it is an established norm, nor that it is rude to do differently. That would be the Country Club approach. I would say it is rude to rebuke someone on the basis that 'it is an accepted norm here' when it is really only an expression of the individual's preference, which he is quite entitled to have and to express, but only as a preference and not as a norm.

3) Top-posting is an extremely Microsoftish form of behavior. Commercial chicanery, illegal monopoly, creation of technical obstacles for commercial benefit were the behaviours I associated with Microsoft. I did not know that they were in the big boys league, doing top posting as well. Send in the Feds. Get our top-posters to stop at illegal monopoly while you are about it - its safer.

Vince

Kelly Fulks wrote:

On Sunday 07 March 2004 06:07, Steven T. Hatton wrote:

...

3) Top-posting is an extremely Microsoftish form of behavior.

Here I disagree. I tried this in KMail and in Pine and both by default set me up to top post a reply. Therefore you can't say that it is Microsoftish behavior.

You're ignoring history. Where was top posting common before M$ hijacked internet standards? Nowhere. M$ decreed that the internet should have top posting (and quoteless quotes) by making its default behavior opposite the theretofore norm. Since the countless dweebs first using the M$ mutant email generally have no clue this is not conformant to the norm, much less something they can change to conform, the internet is now scourged with Jeopardy email. KMail & Pine have apparently since decided to play copycat.

The authors of OSS are also bucking tradition and changing the norm by default. Most users, when replying to a message, simply start typing where the cursor gets set and if their mail program sets them up for top posting, that is what they will do.

Precisely the problem initiated by M$'s default behavior and now commonplace. -- "Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality." President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:56:19 -0600, C Hamel wrote:

Do you really enjoy scrolling to the end to see the latest reply *that_much*??

The complaint about scrolling to the end is a complaint about excessive quoting, not about bottom posting. -- David Benfell, LCP benfell@parts-unknown.org --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

The 2004-03-08 at 09:02 +0200, jaska wrote:

Also, I need to search the first line without quote-char while scrolling... Irritating...

I don't... it is in diferent color, even font. Why search? -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Sorry this, but I can't resist...

internet standards? Nowhere. M$ decreed that the internet should have top posting (and quoteless quotes) by making its default behavior

Should we abandon KDE, Gnome & other GUI because it is so Micosoftish?

Precisely the problem initiated by M$'s default behavior and now commonplace.

Same again.. Maybe I get rid of my mouse, keyboard, GUI, command prompt, hotplug devices, screen saver plus many more nice thingies... just because M$ uses them? Why on earth some people want to hate one thing from M$, but use the other stuff that M$ has? They should hate M$ totally, or accept that M$ has also adopt good things to its OS! (they havent invented anything though..) Personally I don't hate M$, it is just another OS, that I do not use. It is my own decision, period. I do not judge others by my selection, they can use whatever they want to. Complaining M$ does not help at all. Spreading Linux-knowledge and give people a try with Linux does. It has been truth for a long time in marketing, NEVER EVER mention competition, and if customer asks about it, try to be objective with the answer. Never speak bad about competition! Jaska

-- "Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality." President Abraham Lincoln

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 08 March 2004 01:58 am, jaska wrote:

Sorry this, but I can't resist...

...

internet standards? Nowhere. M$ decreed that the internet should have top posting (and quoteless quotes) by making its default behavior

Should we abandon KDE, Gnome & other GUI because it is so Micosoftish?

Hardly. Since I introduced the term Microsoftish into this discussion, I believe my opinion on this matter is apropos here. First of all, Microsoft did not invent the graphical user interface, nor have they ever been the exclusive provider of such an interface. Many of the features found in Microsoft's GUI were taken from the precedents of Apple and X-Windows. Since I have been a strong advocate of advancing the functionality of the KDE ever since Dee told me about it in the spring of 1997, (NB: KDE 1 was released August 28, 1997) I find the suggestion that it should be abandoned because it is, allegedly, Microsoftish (the term 'Microsoftish' is one of my noteworthy contributions to the English lexicon, BTW).

...

Precisely the problem initiated by M$'s default behavior and now commonplace.

Same again.. Maybe I get rid of my mouse, keyboard, GUI, command prompt, hotplug devices, screen saver plus many more nice thingies... just because M$ uses them?

None of them were invented by Microsoft. But it is extremely Microsoftish to believe they were.

Why on earth some people want to hate one thing from M$, but use the other stuff that M$ has?

The introduction of the adjective microsoftish into the discussion was intended humorously. IOW, IT WAS A JOKE!

They should hate M$ totally, or accept that M$ has also adopt good things to its OS! (they havent invented anything though..)

I believe you missed the point. The point is that the Internet had an established, and documented guideline for how to handle posting replies to mailing lists. Microsoft introduced a mail client which both encouraged violating those established protocols, and made it virtually, if not actually impossible to configure their mail client to behave according to the established protocol.

Personally I don't hate M$, it is just another OS, that I do not use. It is my own decision, period. I do not judge others by my selection, they can use whatever they want to.

My suspicion is you haven't been in the industry for very long. If you truly understood what has taken place you would understand why people don't like Microsoft.

Complaining M$ does not help at all. Spreading Linux-knowledge and give people a try with Linux does.

It has been truth for a long time in marketing, Actually that's advertising. Marketing is, technically, the study of markets and the viability of a product.

NEVER EVER mention competition, and if customer asks about it, try to be objective with the answer. Never speak bad about competition!

Competition? Where?

Jaska

STH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFATHSIwX61+IL0QsMRAvUiAJ4ps27FjMWE3YZVTwqOobK9W8d0hgCg06Fx PWgjRzhegC4+bSngxu17Ny4= =Zy0I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

So You are hating M$.. among other things, like people who do not follow Your way of writing? Shame on You, none should be a dictator. Jaska.

3) Top-posting is an extremely Microsoftish form of behavior.

On Sunday 07 March 2004 20:52, Martin wrote:

When do we start helping each other again rahter then watching for top/bottom posters?

As in "Gulliver's Travels" [ political book by Jonathan Swift] , there were the wars of the 'big-endians' against the 'little-endians' { those who opened their boiled eggs at the pointed end, or, the rounded end } best rgds _________

Hartmut Meyer wrote:

those discussions about top or bottom posting, TOFU etc. are surely eating up some bandwith here. What amazes me is that all the arguing seems to miss the point. This is not really about the convenience of reading the answer without scrolling or about how it is "usually" done (an argument used by both parties). If that was all that is to say about top or bottom posting, than it wouldn't be worthwhile to start arguing in the first place. And I guess it is exactly this what most top posters are saying.

I'd have more sympathy for top only posters if they then took the trouble to strip all the crap at the bottom. Personally I use what is appropriate at the time. If I am commenting on a series of points, then the comments go below each point. But I only quote enough of the previous post to maintain the context. Properly threaded discussions, with modern 'browsers', should mean that quoting at all is unnecessary, but until that is achieved ... p.s. I believe that the text to speech options available allow skipping paragraphs, so that anybody relying on that means of output can step through a message as required. BUT the poster needs to be courteous and trim anything unnecessary from the original :) -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

On Sunday 07 March 2004 7:35 am, Hartmut Meyer wrote:

Argl.

I messed up the subject. It should have said

"The real reason why top posting is *functionally* inferior"

Quite. Fred -- "...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Where's the f'n RFC on proper placement of replies in an e-mail thread? Somebody, please, if you know where to find it, post it. STH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAS7EEwX61+IL0QsMRAhZIAKCZHGDb4Cry9H4sufvf/tC4O03NmwCdE+AF Yd6o3ejjfLZ756Djsfhmddc= =DPKX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sunday 07 March 2004 16:56, Hans Forbrich wrote:

On Sunday 07 March 2004 16:32, Steven T. Hatton wrote:

...

Where's the f'n RFC on proper placement of replies in an e-mail thread? Somebody, please, if you know where to find it, post it.

Google: "rfc netiquette" => rfc netiquette <sigh>

Apologies to list - was intended reply-to-sender, not list. /Hans

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Where's the f'n RFC on proper placement of replies in an e-mail thread? Somebody, please, if you know where to find it, post it.

Put RFC 1855 in a web search engine. -- JDL Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit.

On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 17:31, Örn Hansen wrote:

torsdag 04 mars 2004 18:10 skrev paulporter@buffalotalks.com:

...

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

Thought you might want to read it.

It sounds like hogwash to me. I'd expect SCO, to at least, hire executives with the ability to spell common words correctly. Even if just in an internal memo.

Know what you mean, but then again...It is SCO... Well it is in fact real: http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004030500926OSCDMS This belongs on the OT list anyway. Matt