Re: Top post vs. bottom post (was: framebuffer refresh)

Yes, of course.  I apologise for corrupting the refresh rate thread without changing the subject.  I guess that makes me lazy, after all.  Cheers, -Hirsch

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Perry
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Suns-at-Home] Top post vs. bottom post (was: framebuffer refresh)

On 8/17/11 7:37 AM, Hirschinger, Jerry D wrote:
> I fail to see how it is inconsiderate of the reader to top post.  How 
> does the reader take more time to read less?  If top posted, the 
> reader only needs to dive down into the old text if they haven't 
> followed the thread.  Bottom posting requires the reader to read all 
> the way to the bottom in every message.  If it were easier on the 
> reader to bottom post, then there would not be this debate from me.  I 
> started out bottom posting

Hey, guys, I think that this is an interesting discussion (not much suns-at-home specific content, but I don't care).  However, I am really interested in the actual 'framebuffer refresh' discussion, so could you guys please follow a different bit of netiquette and change the subject line when the topic changes.

Thanks,

alan

>   way back when, but changed because bottom posting is too hard to read with multiple comments mixed together among an ever-corrupted original message.  Bottom posting is a relic of an era when bandwidth was limited enough to warrant keeping messages as short as possible, so the old text not commented upon was cut out.  That no longer generally applies at today's data rates and memory sizes.
> While I am arguing the merits of top posting, I am not telling any of you how to post, as others of you are.  THAT would be arrogant.
> Cheers, -Hirsch
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mouse
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:21 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Suns-at-Home] framebuffer refresh
>
>> Top posting is the most efficient use of time; it has nothing to do 
>> with being lazy.
> This is why it's rude: it's arrogant.  It's saying to your readers "my time composing this message is more important than your time reading it, so much so that I'm going to save time writing even though it forces you to take extra time reading".
>
> On a mailing list, where the message has one writer and many readers, the offense is compounded.
>
> On a mailing list with an established culture that does not accept top-posting, it also says "I don't care about _your_ culture; I'm going to (try to) impose mine onto you".
>
> Of course, if those are the messages you _want_ to convey....
>
>> [...].  Get a life.
> Uh-huh.  Really cogent and convincing argument, there.
>
> /~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
>   X  Against HTML		[email protected]
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
> _______________________________________________
> Suns-at-Home mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.net-kitchen.com/mailman/listinfo/suns-at-home
> _______________________________________________
> Suns-at-Home mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.net-kitchen.com/mailman/listinfo/suns-at-home

_______________________________________________
Suns-at-Home mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.net-kitchen.com/mailman/listinfo/suns-at-home