|
|
Posted by Rik Wasmus on 10/02/07 14:56
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:46:56 +0200, Mtr <Mtr@no.spam> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:58:58 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Also, please don't top post. Thanks.
>
> not to be overly contentious, but it is pretentious to insist on bottom
> posting. All you are saying is that you want people to post in a way that
> is better for you, in the way that you read newsgroups. But if I read a
> thread all at once (since I am apt to read a group maybe once a week or
> so)
> then bottom posting is a burden because of all the needless scrolling.
It is quite arrogant to insist to know better then a usenet practise that
has evolved en been followed for years and years. Contrary to online
forums, usenet is not on a single server, but thousands of them. Wether or
not other people seeing your reply to a group can see the original message
you are replying to is not something you can rely on. To keep a
conversation in order, clear, and replies readable, bottomposting has been
a usenet-wide practise for years for good reasons. Any decent newsreaders
understands it, follows it, and makes it easy for you to see what parts
are quotes and what parts are new.
> If you are trying to make the newsgroup more readable, then you would be
> better off trying to get people to trim their replies. Your post in the
> Lite Encryption thread is a good example of what not to do: over two
> hundred lines of quoting to add a very few lines of new reply.
Selective quoting is certainly _also_ a practise one should follow indeed.
--
Rik Wasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|