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

This debate has gone on for decades and ultimately is simply a matter of personal preference.  We're all busy, and what works well for you works differently for me.  That's an advantage of the human condition, not a detriment.  We have come to the point we are using the same reasoning to justify both positions, so that is a good signal that the argument is moot.  One gets used to it either way.  My original objection was not to bottom posting, but to the notion that some outdated Intel memo should dictate how I post.  Yes, 'bottom' posting is a misnomer; it would be more accurate to call your way 'edit' posting.
As far as converting paragraphs and lines, I would venture that is an artifact of email software which fails to word wrap lines when they reach the edge of the screen or window.  I have not converted anything.
Cheers, -Hirsch



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mouse
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Suns-at-Home] framebuffer refresh

> I fail to see how it is inconsiderate of the reader to top post.  How 
> does the reader take more time to read less?

Because it's not necessarily reading less.  Perhaps this isn't true of you, but I know that I am used to reading linearly.  Jumping back and forth between two relatively widely separated pieces of text, such as a message quoted in its entirety below and a top-posted response, slows me down significantly.  It slows me even further to have to try to figure out what is being responded to and what is being ignored.  This last is not, strictly, an aspect of top-posting; it's failure to trim quotes back to relevant fractions - but, at least in my experience, top-posted responses *invariably* fail to trim the quoted message down to relevant excerpts.

> If top posted, the reader only needs to dive down into the old text if 
> they haven't followed the thread.

Perhaps you get less mail than I do.  I typically have a least a dozen threads going that a new message could belong to; providing relevant context is a substantial help.

> Bottom posting requires the reader to read all the way to the bottom 
> in every message.

So, don't bottom-post.  Do as nearly everyone else on the list does, as I'm doing here, and (a) cut stuff you aren't responding to, (b) mark quotes as quotes, and (c) place responses inline, after the text being responded to.

> While I am arguing the merits of top posting, I am not telling any of 
> you how to post, as others of you are.

You are welcome to top-post all you like - elsewhere.

You can, of course, persist in top-posting here too.  You will, however, be demonstrating a wilful - no longer excusable as ignorance - disregard of the established culture, at an absolute minimum; many people, such as me, will further see it as a (now wilful) display of the attitude that your convenience is more important than your readers'; this will lead me, for one, to consider your messages substantially less worth bothering to read than those that demonstrate that the writer is actually willing to put time and effort into creating a message that is easy to read.

In passing, you also mangled my message when quoting it - you converted each paragraph to a single line - and your response _also_ used paragraph-length lines.  These too impair readbility and violate established convention.

/~\ 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