[scribus] top-posting, bottom-posting, middle posting

[michael crane]

me too
--
sent from my iphone ha ha ha
On Sun, December 5, 2010 11:03 pm, Nicholas Newman wrote:
>
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:59:16 -0500
>> From: Gregory Pittman <gregp_ky at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [scribus] top-posting
>> To: Scribus User Mailing List <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
>> Message-ID: <4CFB0004.6000603 at yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> On 12/04/2010 08:20 PM, Nicholas Newman wrote:
>>> On 05 Dec 2010, at 00:17, scribus-request at lists.scribus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2010 02:21 PM, ehud.kaplan at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> What does top post mean?  I use Thunderbird as a front end for gmail
>>>>> and
>>>>> clicked on Reply-list.
>>>>> EK
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/4/2010 3:53 PM, Peter Linnell wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Top posting is when you put your reply above the original text, as you
>>>> did above.  It's considered bad manners by most people because it
>>>> means
>>>> that you read everything in reverse chronological order.  I'm guessing
>>>> that Outlook and other Winderz email programs work that way because
>>>> dead-tree files are always done that way and office workers are used
>>>> to
>>>> reading things backwards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually top-posting merely assumes that as a diligent follower of
>>> files and events one is already familiar with what has gone before, and
>>> does not need to re-familiarise oneself with everything that has been
>>> written before.
>>> Thus one may as well just read the latest posting, at the top.
>>> However when one is dealing with more than say 20 or 30 things at the
>>> same time and new installments come only after a few days,
>>> bottom-posting can seem like a good idea because one has the entire
>>> history in front of one in chronological order, rather like being able
>>> to read the entire history of laws in England, starting perhaps a bit
>>> late with Magna Carta, before ploughing through the rest and getting to
>>> the latest one.
>>> However as both arguments can apply to both top and bottom posting,
>>> does it really matter? Can't we all adapt to both, whatever the habits
>>> of the writer? Personally I find no problem with either.
>>
>> For this list we have decided to recommend bottom-posting; it's not a
>> rule, but a strong preference. For us I think it's a bit like the same
>> reason a story starts at the top and ends at the bottom.
>>
>> Another thing I see is that many of those who top-post simply keep
>> adding onto a post rather than trimming it down to the part they wish to
>> comment about. Especially if you're familiar with a thread, you don't
>> need the entire thread contained in each post.
>>
>> Finally, all too often it seems that at least some who top post haven't
>> actually taken the time to read the whole post, and therefore may be
>> adding things that are not novel or perhaps superseded by comments from
>> someone more knowledgeable than they are.
>>
>> _Sometimes_ it may make sense to add comments inside a previous post,
>> where specific items can be in close proximity to what they refer to,
>> but when a lot of this inline posting is done, it's clearly harder to
>> understand at times, and one also has trouble keeping track of who said
>> what.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
>
> Good points Greg, and I for one am also perfectly happy to bottom-post;
> The trouble with middle-posting, as you say, is keeping track, but also
> actually noticing them during a quick "reminder-scan".
>
> Nicholas
>
> Nicholas Newman
> Nicholas.Newman at Skynet.be
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scribus mailing list
> scribus at lists.scribus.net
> http://lists.scribus.net/mailman/listinfo/scribus
>
>