Re: OT: Safe Riddles
From: Charlie Gibbs (cgibbs_at_kltpzyxm.invalid)
Date: 01/07/05
- Next message: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Previous message: Daniel Haude: "Re: OT: Hey Eurotrash, the Arabs Beat You to It"
- In reply to: Parse Tree: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Next in thread: John Woodgate: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 07 Jan 05 01:18:20 -0800
In article <jZmDd.307123$lR6.44920@news.easynews.com>,
account@domain.extension (Parse Tree) writes:
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> In article <zP1Dd.252385$O24.43690@news.easynews.com>,
>> account@domain.extension (Parse Tree) writes:
>>
>>> You need to justify bottom posting with something. If all other
>>> things are equal, and top posting is more convenient, then it is
>>> necessarily more appropriate.
>>
>> More convenient for whom? The original poster, who is too lazy to
>> scroll to the bottom of the quoted material because his newsreader
>> is too broken to put the cursor there by default?
>
> I agree that it is more convenient for the original poster.
IMHO the onus is on the original poster to make things easier
for the reader - not the other way around.
>> Or the thousands
>> of potential readers,
>
> The participants are the first concern. Then the actual readers and
> then the potential readers.
Where do participants come from? They start out as "actual readers",
which in turn start out as "potential readers". Scare off the potential
readers and the thread dries up. (Whether this is desirable is another
topic.)
> Regardless, people wanting to read a thread would read the thread,
> not a single post. The quoted material is there just in case.
Still, many people look in after a thread has already started.
And some people might not get around to looking at a newsgroup
for a couple of days. That's what the quoted text is for: not
to archive the thread's history, but to establish (or re-establish)
context.
> Lack of snipping is a problem with both top and bottom posting.
Agreed.
> However, bottom posting makes it easier to snip, because you can snip
^^^^^^ I presume you meant "top"
> everything that is exactly a certain post count back by simply
> deleting everything that apppears after a certain point. Bottom
> post snipping is slightly more tedious.
Not me. I scan through the post from top to bottom, snipping
excess text and inserting replies as required.
>> And note that phrase "follow up". That implies that your reply
>> should follow the quoted text, not precede it.
>
> No. The use of the word follow is in reference to it following it
> time, not coming after it in space.
>
> It is a follow up because it is a response that happens after the
> initial post, not because it is spatially located lower on a page
> or whatnot.
Still, as a general rule, written text runs from top to bottom
as time runs from earlier to later. Bottom-posting preserves
this natural sequence.
>> Unless you normally read the
>> last chapter of a book, then the previous one, until you reach the
>> start.
>
> Carrying the book analogy further, then everyone would have to read
> the quoted material because you shouldn't really be reading the middle
> of the novel without reading the chapters before it.
Not at all. If you read a book halfway through then put it down to
do other things, next time you pick it up you don't start over from
the beginning. You jump to where you left off and continue from
there. The same applies to postings - at least if they preserve
chronological sequence.
> This is clearly a false analogy. You are not reading the thread.
> You are not reading the quoted material unless you forgot what
> has been previously posted.
And I sometimes do this. If I've been away for several days, I want
a quick refresher on what went before. It's like those movie serials -
I don't know of a single one that waited until the end before saying,
"In our last week's episode..."
<snip>
>> Or trim things so that there
>> aren't so many levels of quoted material.
>
> Why exert yourself when top posting solves these problems more easily?
I'm just old-fashioned, I guess. I was brought up to have enough
respect for the reader to try to make it easier for him, rather
than demanding that he make an effort to read my words.
>> There's seldom any
>> reason to quote more than three or four levels deep. Again,
>> it all comes back to laziness on the part of the poster,
>
> The poster is always going to be lazy. You can go right ahead on that.
Were I somewhat more excitable, I'd take that as an insult.
Instead, I'll just point out that I'm an exception.
> Personally, I think it's far easier to get them to do something that
> requires even less effort than they're currently exerting.
On the other hand, it's easier still for a potential reader to simply
ignore any posting that wasn't designed to be easy to read. If you
really want your words to be read, laziness on your part can be
counterproductive.
> You don't write all the quoted material. Your write the original
> content. And the original content is all read from start to finish
> in the thread. So what are you going on about?
In that case, why quote anything at all?
>> --
>> /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
>> \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
>> X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
>> / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
>
> Speaking of tradition, I believe the standard format for a sig is two
> -'s followed by a space.
Quite so. Is my newsreader not doing this? It looks OK to me when
my postings appear in subsequent retrievals of news.
-- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
- Next message: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Previous message: Daniel Haude: "Re: OT: Hey Eurotrash, the Arabs Beat You to It"
- In reply to: Parse Tree: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Next in thread: John Woodgate: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: OT: Safe Riddles"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
