Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 17:30:22 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1022884222.d9ded4@mired.org> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: rob <rob@pythonemproject.com>, "chat@freebsd.org" <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Bottom-quoting (was Re: My friends were amazed at FreeBSD...) Message-ID: <15601.25086.46245.903887@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20020526220340.GA1413@lpt.ens.fr> References: <20020524143036.C67484@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020524164101.P51722-100000@muheleja.eenet.ee> <20020524163603.L81843@lpt.ens.fr> <3CEECD6A.5E9BB6A6@pythonemproject.com> <20020525175149.A69827@lpt.ens.fr> <15601.2665.379231.456776@guru.mired.org> <20020526173949.GA230@lpt.ens.fr> <15601.10022.167754.574044@guru.mired.org> <20020526183504.GA472@lpt.ens.fr> <15601.23130.211488.574573@guru.mired.org> <20020526220340.GA1413@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20020526220340.GA1413@lpt.ens.fr>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> typed: > Mike Meyer said on May 26, 2002 at 16:57:46: > > In <20020526183504.GA472@lpt.ens.fr>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> typed: > > > If we're talking annoyance factors, one can pick out several in > > > anyone's style. Here are some in yours. > > > > Note that I didn't pick on annoying factors in any particular persons > > style. I objected to recommending someone who hasn't yet learned good > > netiquette to adopt what is almost universially recognized as a *bad* > > habit. Minor formatting details are just that - minor formatting > > details. Top-posting makes it almost impossible to follow the thread > > of a conversation. > But your recommended solution for clueless newbies -- not quoting at all > -- makes it totally impossible to follow the thread (without > consulting archives). That was my point. I disagree with your point. Unless you suffer from ADD, it's pretty easy to keep track of message threads in a conversation you're following. If you can't do that, any good MUA - or even a mediocre one - will thread messages for you. Even if you don't keep the messages around, the archives will thread them for you as well. Which makes it less work to recover the context of a message from the archies than from a message with three or four responses that blindly include the full text of the message they are responding to at every step. > I agree with your other point, that it's better to teach good habits > than bad habits (but *not* by teaching them not to quote to start > with). I just think that including the entire text of a message is a bad habit. Not quoting the message at all isn't a bad habit. If you're going to suggest simple solutions, suggest the one that's least wrong - that people don't bother quoting unless they're going to edit the quoted text for brevity. > On the other hand, bottom-posting is not only very widespread, > but (in my opinion) not as bad as you paint it. I myself do it when > mailing other people who do it -- it keeps things more consistent. Bottom posting is usually the best way to do things. It means the most recent part of the conversation is always at the bottom. Better yet, you can read the conversation chronologically by reading the message from top to bottom, rather than from near-bottom to bottom, up to next message and back down to top of the last one, and so on. When I respond to top posted messages, I typically just throw out the inclusions. They're worthless for recovering or providing context, and not worth the trouble of editing - which means they aren't worth the trouble of sending. In netiquette, as elsewhere, thinking globally and acting locally is a good thing. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15601.25086.46245.903887>