Searching \ for '[OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=top+posting+really
Search entire site for: 'Top-posting, is it really that bad?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?'
2005\11\25@012528 by Chen Xiao Fan

face
flavicon
face
Changed it to [OT] and let's continue there.

Let me re-iterate my point.

1) I think context posting is the best if it can be easily be done.
However it is not.

2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting.

For example, Wayne Topa wrote:
"The same is true of top posting a one line reply to a long post
and including the complete thread in the reply.  That should be
history!"

And I think replacing top-posting to bottom-posting and we have:
"The same is true of bottom posting a one line reply to a long post
and including the complete thread in the reply.  That should be
history!"

No difference here. Actually in this case, bottom-posting is even
worse than top-posting.

3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT
administrators are not all stupid by choosing them.

4) Anti-top-posting sentiment is more religious or historical than
it should be justified. Some old timers make it a rule and try to
impose it to other users. They are still doing it, however only
on some unix-centric mailing list which by no means should be the
norm now.

Regards,
Xiaofan

-----Original Message-----
From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:00 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?

This really isn't [EE] at all, so I'm going to stop now unless you move
it to [OT].  Just not sure if you read [OT], so last reply here.

Nate


2005\11\25@020254 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> Changed it to [OT] and let's continue there.

Ok!  ;-)  As long as we don't drive everyone crazy.

> Let me re-iterate my point.
>
> 1) I think context posting is the best if it can be easily be done.
> However it is not.

I do it on virtually every reply I send.  I have my clients set to
text-only (because HTML and RTF are rarely that useful), and I also set
the client to quote the original reply -- doesn't matter where the
cursor is after I hit reply...

I just click at the area I want to reply to and start typing, which
inserts my comments in context, like this one.

I'm still not understanding why you believe this is difficult.  I can do
this in Outlook, Outlook Express, Thunderbird, and Kmail with ease.

I then use the SHIFT-<ARROW> keys to highlight downward if I'm
"snipping" something, and hit the Delete key.  My hands never leave the
keyboard!

> 2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting.

I guess my problem with it is grammatical and practical -- if a reply
chain gets long and someone wishes to add to it while keeping multiple
author's context, a mixture of either top or bottom-posting gets
confusing for the reader.  The language is written top-down, replies
with context should be also.

It seems to me the rule of common sense more than the rule of law would
apply here.

- Context-post when keeping context is helpful.
- Simply reply without quoting if context is obvious.
- Don't bother top-posting at all -- it doesn't help the reader in the
slightest.

> For example, Wayne Topa wrote:
> "The same is true of top posting a one line reply to a long post
> and including the complete thread in the reply.  That should be
> history!"

Absolutely true.  The quoting of the original message is the problem
here.  It wasn't necessary.

> And I think replacing top-posting to bottom-posting and we have:
> "The same is true of bottom posting a one line reply to a long post
> and including the complete thread in the reply.  That should be
> history!"
>
> No difference here. Actually in this case, bottom-posting is even
> worse than top-posting.

Agreed, don't quote when not necessary.

> 3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT
> administrators are not all stupid by choosing them.

That's debatable.  Outlook in a corporate environment still does a few
things that are completely non-email related that keep it the standard,
but those benefits are slowly going away, and free or nearly-free
replacements are stepping up to being able to handle those tasks.  Since
most of those benefits are integrated with Exchange Server and Active
Directory, it'll take a long time for companies that have already spent
money on those things (very expensive... very very expensive when you
factor in the performance level of the hardware needed to operate
Exchange) to leave them.  However, their smaller faster more-competitive
rivals will start using free or close-to-free tools to do the same jobs,
 and they'll gain ground on the larger, slower to change, companies.

That's my opinion on it anyway... a server or server farm with
appropriate RAID, speed, and capabilities for 10,000 users on Exchange
is enormously expensive, compared to say a farm running postfix,
Courier-IMAP, and clients running Thunderbird or Evolution.

If the organization can culturally deal with using an off-board
calendering app (or better a web-based one on their Intranet), since
it's rare to see Outlook calendaring used extensively BETWEEN
organizations... they can save boatloads of money on software licenses
and hardware.  But the cultural shift is sometimes harder than the
technological one.

Many organizations "front-end" Outlook with regional or departmental
Exchange servers, and do the heavy mail transport lifting behind the
scenes with Unix or Linux.  The bigger the organization, the more likely
they have a system like this in the "back room".

> 4) Anti-top-posting sentiment is more religious or historical than
> it should be justified. Some old timers make it a rule and try to
> impose it to other users. They are still doing it, however only
> on some unix-centric mailing list which by no means should be the
> norm now.

It's grammatical, not religious.  Unless you call English professors and
great Writers and Editors, "Father" or "Reverend".  ;-)

Of course, some of the debates that language people get into, and the
proliferation of more and more slang into English would tend to make me
agree -- perhaps English should be taught as a religion!  You have to
believe grammar is important, or you will use words like, "Shizzle my
zizzle" in daily language.  (No offense meant toward Snoop-Dog,
Flava-Flave, or any of the rap music crowd!)

I understand your point - I just think when we're trying to communicate,
adding complexity in any form is backwards.  Top-posting adds
complexity, bottom-posting doesn't.  Contextual posting adds less
complexity, but has the added benefit of helping the reader separate the
ideas into digestible pieces.

Of course, when it comes to slang... it always makes things more
difficult to understand:  (Horrible but hopefully funny example below.)

Yo Yo Yo, I'm Kickin' like Chicken, G-Dawg Homie.  S'up in da Hood, G?

My pins on PORTB be chillin' with 4 volts juice when my silicon shizzle
be stuck cold in a bad loop, dawg.  They's supposed to be bouncin' from
0 to 4 in time with my fresh tunes I'm poppin' into Pin 8 from my deaf
CD player, yo.

I ain't never gonna figure out how to cap that bug and pimp my ride with
sequenced ground effects if I cain't get y'alls help.  A'ight?

By the way that Olin, he's a Master of the keys, baby.  I'm usin' his
wicked fly libraries.

(I hope that comes off as funny as it sounds in my head... it would be
so much better to record it to audio!  And in no way do I mean it to be
racist nor do I want a rap music fan sending his "homies" after me for
that one!  Hahahaha...)

Nate

2005\11\25@050045 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Friday 25 November 2005 06:25, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> Changed it to [OT] and let's continue there.

interesting war brewing.. hehe..

> 1) I think context posting is the best if it can be easily be done.
> However it is not.

It is easy if you type in your replies while reading the email.. also allows
you to trim-as-you-go.. but i only do that for mailing lists stuff.. the
corporate types tend to expect the replies to be in one big message.. i guess
this stems from traditional mail where replies were on separate sheets of
paper..

> 2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting.

agreed..

> 3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT
> administrators are not all stupid by choosing them.

they're not stupid.. but sometimes these decisions are not in their hands..
and sometimes they're just lazy.. OE comes free with an installation of
windows.. installing anything else would require them to justify purchasing
an alternative to the bean counters, and would also require them to deploy
and manage another piece of software on top of the microsoft stuff..

> impose it to other users. They are still doing it, however only
> on some unix-centric mailing list which by no means should be the

well.. i think everyone should have the freedom to choose.. i wouldn't impose
it on others, but i would definitely suggest it.. cause it makes replies
easier to digest.. i won't need to constantly page-up/down to read the
replies to the question..

cheers..

with metta,
Shawn Tan.

2005\11\25@055324 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Learn to use context posting with Gmail. (By default Gmail leaves
two empty line before the quote --> invite people to top-post. ;-)

On 11/25/05, Nate Duehr <.....nateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

This is what I get when I hit reply button when I am using
Outlook 2k at work.

"{Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@055632 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On 11/25/05, Shawn Tan <shawn.tanspamKILLspamaeste.net> wrote:
> On Friday 25 November 2005 06:25, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
>
> > 2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting.
>
> agreed..
>
> with metta,
> Shawn Tan.

First one to agree that bottom posting is as good or bad as top-posting.
Interesting.

Actually I think both are okay in this case. If the email is short,
both are okay.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@061529 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:25:24 +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:

> Changed it to [OT] and let's continue there.

Well done!  A bit late, in my opinion, but never mind...

> Let me re-iterate my point.
>
> 1) I think context posting is the best if it can be easily be done.
> However it is not.

I don't have any problem with it - I admit that some email clients make it more difficult, but that is a
failing that should justify getting a decent email client, since it is failing in its task.  Unless it was
designed purely for reading and not replying, of course.

> 2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting.

Yes it is.  If every reader receives messages strictly in the order they were sent, remembers the orignial
context, and can relate it to the reply they are reading, then no quote of the original is needed, but in any
other case the quote should be present.  And as such, it should read in order.  As far as I know there isn't a
writing system in the World that reads bottom-to-top - they all read either sideways then downwards
(Indo-European langages), or downwards then sideways (Chinese, for example).  And all email clients display
the top of the message and expect the reader to scroll downwards, so reading the context first then the reply
makes sense especially if there is more than one cascaded reply.  Top posting makes nonsense in the latter
case, and makes it really hard work to read.

Interleaved, or context, posting as I am doing here should be easiest of all to read and understand, because
there is little imposition on the reader to work out the comment/reply relationship.

> For example, Wayne Topa wrote:
> "The same is true of top posting a one line reply to a long post
> and including the complete thread in the reply.  That should be
> history!"

"Two wrongs don't make a right!"  Not trimming irrelevant quotes is a mistake, and top posting does not make
it any more or less so.  Driving along with one foot on the brake wastes fuel, and switching to a smaller car
so it wastes less fuel isn't the answer!

>...

> 3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT
> administrators are not all stupid by choosing them.

Some of them are, some of them are lazy, some want to make their working life as easy as possible, some are
afraid to suggest anything different from what "everyone else" does, some work for companies where MS's sales
team have persuaded the higher echelons that an all-MS shop is a good idea... there are many reasons why
people use OE, and none of those reasons is "because it's the best thing available".  So they have abdicated
the decision making process to marketing hype.  I think they are wrong to do that - if something doesn't do
what you want, it needs to be changed and replaced, not "put up with" because someone is too unimaginative to
consider changing to something that does do the job properly.

Oh, and I've never used Linux in my life, so please don't stamp me with the prejucide you seem to have for
those who do!

> 4) Anti-top-posting sentiment is more religious or historical than
> it should be justified. Some old timers make it a rule and try to
> impose it to other users. They are still doing it, however only
> on some unix-centric mailing list which by no means should be the
> norm now.

It's not religious or historical, it's practical.  When I (or you) post to the PIClist, we are possibly read
by about 2,000 people.  If it takes me an extra minute to format my reply in a way that saves each reader *one
second*, the net gain is 33 minutes of man-time saved, so that's 33:1 planet-wide gain, and one second is a
very conservative saving.  Now by making it easy on yourself and harder on the readers, you are saying "I
don't care about your time, it's mine that is important".  You can have that attitude if you like, but the
chances are that readers will tend to stop reading your messages if they are hard work to read.  If your
reason is to inform / entertain / help others then that strategy is inefficient if it loses you audience.

And why do you keep harping on about unix?  This is a matter of etiquette and manners, taking account of what
you are imposing on your readers, and it has nothing to do with platform.  Unless you think that criticising
shortcomings (of people and software) is somehow a bad thing, I can't see why you are taking that stand.

A: Top posting!

Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet?

:-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\11\25@062331 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/25/05, Nate Duehr <.....nateKILLspamspam.....natetech.com> wrote:
> Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> > 3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT
> > administrators are not all stupid by choosing them.
>
> That's debatable.  Outlook in a corporate environment still does a few
> things that are completely non-email related that keep it the standard,
> but those benefits are slowly going away, and free or nearly-free
> replacements are stepping up to being able to handle those tasks.  Since
> most of those benefits are integrated with Exchange Server and Active
> Directory, it'll take a long time for companies that have already spent
> money on those things (very expensive... very very expensive when you
> factor in the performance level of the hardware needed to operate
> Exchange) to leave them.  However, their smaller faster more-competitive
> rivals will start using free or close-to-free tools to do the same jobs,
>  and they'll gain ground on the larger, slower to change, companies.
>

My company was originally using Novell with Pegasus mail. It is rather
troublesome to use. Upgrade to Exchange greatly reduce the problems.

No Linux on sight for coporate world yet. We are still using Windows XP
with Novel server and IBM AS400 ERP server and Oracle server.

And a Dell Windows computer is cheaper than a Dell Linux computer if
you want the support.

Do not get me wrong. I like Linux and I like open source. However I do
think that the free alternative is not that cheap after all in the coporate
setup.

> That's my opinion on it anyway... a server or server farm with
> appropriate RAID, speed, and capabilities for 10,000 users on Exchange
> is enormously expensive, compared to say a farm running postfix,
> Courier-IMAP, and clients running Thunderbird or Evolution.
>
Nanyang Technology University of Singapore has a massive Exchange Server
setup (20000 to 30000 users or more, including alumni account, maybe
60,000 or more). It is said to be much cheaper than SUN and Digital Unix
based solution.

> If the organization can culturally deal with using an off-board
> calendering app (or better a web-based one on their Intranet), since
> it's rare to see Outlook calendaring used extensively BETWEEN
> organizations... they can save boatloads of money on software licenses
> and hardware.  But the cultural shift is sometimes harder than the
> technological one.

Outlook is very convenient with the same organization. Between
organization, it is not much useful.

Web-based is the buzz word now. In the real world, I hate the web
service thingy. After they move the AS400 terminal based ERP application
to web-service, I need to spend 10 minutes on a 1minutes task originally
on the AS400 terminal.

>
> Many organizations "front-end" Outlook with regional or departmental
> Exchange servers, and do the heavy mail transport lifting behind the
> scenes with Unix or Linux.  The bigger the organization, the more likely
> they have a system like this in the "back room".

Yes Outlook support other server as well. Outlook express news reader
is much better than a lot of Unix email client when comes to news reading.

> > 4) Anti-top-posting sentiment is more religious or historical than
> > it should be justified. Some old timers make it a rule and try to
> > impose it to other users. They are still doing it, however only
> > on some unix-centric mailing list which by no means should be the
> > norm now.
>
> It's grammatical, not religious.  Unless you call English professors and
> great Writers and Editors, "Father" or "Reverend".  ;-)
>

Okay I do not do that . In my dictionary there are no words called
"Reverend". ;-)
I am a free thinker and do not believe there is another one high high above. ;-)

> Of course, some of the debates that language people get into, and the
> proliferation of more and more slang into English would tend to make me
> agree -- perhaps English should be taught as a religion!  You have to
> believe grammar is important, or you will use words like, "Shizzle my
> zizzle" in daily language.  (No offense meant toward Snoop-Dog,
> Flava-Flave, or any of the rap music crowd!)
>
Luckily English is not taught as religion.

> I understand your point - I just think when we're trying to communicate,
> adding complexity in any form is backwards.  Top-posting adds
> complexity, bottom-posting doesn't.  Contextual posting adds less
> complexity, but has the added benefit of helping the reader separate the
> ideas into digestible pieces.
>

I do not agree that "bottom-posting doesn't add complexity". To scroll
to the bottom adds a bit of complexity involved. To leave two empty
lines waste bandwidth. Start from the empty line is the natural thing
to do --> top posting adds less complexity.

Context posting above your name may not be a good idea. ;-)
> Nate
> --

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@063736 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Using RTF or HTML it is still easy to do context posting. Within the same
> company (using the same Outlook 2k across the worldwide subsidary),
> it is actually good to use RTF and to do context posting is still easy in this
> case --> just using a different font color. However we all know RTF/HTML
> may not be good for people outside (like those using PINE). With plain text,
> what should I do? Shall I add a ">" at the beginning of every line?

Yes, Outlook and Outlook Express can both do this, I think.

On my copy of Outlook here...

Tools -> Options -> E-mail Options ->
       "When replying to a message"
       [drop-menu] "Prefix each line of the original message"

And there's a place to specify the character used for the prefix.

Default is ">" and this has been a defacto standard since USENET was
popular, I guess.

Commonly, depending on the client used, you'll see "nested" levels of
">", ">>" (double reply), ">>>" third reply.

This can get messy after a while and might cause someone to have to trim
them up a bit (or not bother with quoting so many people, just the
latest person's additional comments).

Some people get fancy and use the -> "Mark my comments with" feature in
Outlook and other clients, and use their initials.... it ends up looking
like :

ND> This is my comment.

This is an older standard, more like the days when BBS's and Compuserve
were popular.

I don't like these "name tags" as much, since they get messier even than
the nested ">>>>" things.  But some people still like them to help them
track who's "talking" in the replies to the message thread.

Nate

2005\11\25@064042 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Friday 25 November 2005 11:15, Howard Winter wrote:

> And why do you keep harping on about unix?  This is a matter of etiquette
> and manners, taking account of what you are imposing on your readers, and
> it has nothing to do with platform.  Unless you think that criticising

i sort of remember that top-posting only really starting taking off after O/OE
came out.. i remember that when i first started using the internet, the email
clients (in windows) didn't automatically assume that i would start my reply
at the top..

but when O/OE come out, it automatically left a few empty lines at the top and
placed the cursor there.. so, in order not to top post, i'd have to delete
off the few blank lines..

why most unix people don't top post: cause there are alternative email clients
to O/OE and they don't assume that you want to top post..

cheers..

2005\11\25@064121 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/25/05, Howard Winter <EraseMEHDRWspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > 2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting.
>
> Yes it is.
Not from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

"Bottom-posting
Though the naïve response to "top-posting" might be to "bottom-post",
this implies that the only difference is that the response comes at
the bottom of all the quoted material instead of atop it. This is also
problematic, since if the quoted material is large, it is just as much
trouble to scan for relevant material before reading the reply."
>
> Interleaved, or context, posting as I am doing here should be easiest of all to >read and understand

Agreed if I can easily do it within Outlook 2k at work.

> > 3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT
> > administrators are not all stupid by choosing them.
>
>
> Oh, and I've never used Linux in my life, so please don't stamp me with the >prejucide you seem to have for those who do!

I use Linux 40% of the time at home. I like Linux and open source world
even though I do not agree with some of the purists within them.

> And why do you keep harping on about unix?

I do not. Sorry if you get that perception. But to be honest I like Linux but
I really do not think comvercial Unix is any better than Windows. I consider
Java more evil than Windows since it makes things much slower.

>
> A: Top posting!
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet?
>

You should quote more. It has more.
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:

Sorry but I hate this one. This is invented by the people who do not
like to see top posts. No top-posts are like this. This is not top-posting!
This is reverse order of "interleaved reply" or "context posting".

>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
>

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@064521 by Peter van Hoof

face picon face
One argument in favor of top posting I didn't read about here yet. In
medium to high volume lists top posting makes it a lot faster to
determine if someone adds something significant to the argument and the
posting is worth reading.

It avoids having to scroll down only to find someone gave a one line
funny remark. It cuts down on time needed to sort chaf from corn and
this definetely matters when subscribing to a lot of lists.

Peter van Hoof

2005\11\25@065125 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Bottom posting here.

On 11/25/05, Nate Duehr <natespamspam_OUTnatetech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Do you think this ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"
thingy is better than top posting when using Outlook 2k?

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@065701 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
I think Wikipedia does a good job here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

Regards,
Xiaofan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

Usage
Unsurprisingly, different online communities differ on whether or not
top posting is objectionable; but if it is found objectionable in a
particular community, top-posting in that community will generally be
seen as major breach of etiquette and will provoke particularly
vehement responses from self-named community regulars.

Objections to top-posting, as a general rule, seem to come from
persons who first went online in the earlier days of Usenet, and in
communities that date to Usenet's early days. Among the most vehement
communities are those in the Usenet comp.lang hierarchy, especially
comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. Etiquette is looser (as is almost
everything) in the alt hierarchy. Newer online participants,
especially those with limited experience of Usenet, tend as a general
rule, to be less sensitive to top-posting, and tend to reject any
argument against top-posting as irrelevant. A typical contrarian view
holds that their software top-posts and they like it.

It may be that users used to older, terminal-oriented software which
was unable to easily show references to posts being replied to,
learned to prefer the summary that not top-posting gives; it is also
likely that the general slower propagation times of the original
Usenet groups made that summary a useful reminder of older posts. As
news and mail readers have become more capable, and as propagation
times have grown shorter, newer users may find top-posting more
efficient.

Microsoft has had a significant influence on top-posting by the
ubiquity of its software; its email and newsreader software top-posts
by default, and in several cases makes it difficult not to top-post;
many users apparently have accepted Microsoft's default as a de facto
standard.

Perhaps because of Microsoft's influence, top-posting is more common
on mailing lists and in personal email. Top-posting is viewed as
seriously destructive to mailing-list digests, where multiple levels
of top-posting are difficult to skip. It is, moreover, nearly
irresistible to post an entire digest back to the mailing list, then
top-post a reply to that message.

Finally, top-posting is simply a custom, like wearing neckties or
eating with one's right hand, that serves to identify one's membership
in a particular community. This self-identification function probably
serves as much as any other factor to reinforce its use: one can not
expect much help in comp.lang.c++ if one self-identifies as a
"barbarian" by top-posting. In this way, not top-posting is similar to
other customs employed by other communities: the Unix community; the
various programmer "cultures"; the "New Jersey/Bell Labs", the
"MIT/Cambridge", or the "West Coast/Berkeley" "communities"; the AOL
"community".

2005\11\25@065958 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Friday 25 November 2005 11:23, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Do not get me wrong. I like Linux and I like open source. However I do
> think that the free alternative is not that cheap after all in the coporate
> setup.

hmmm... i think it depends on how you set it up.. if you have a thin-client
like setup (say harddiskless), with computers booting off the network, and
saving data on centralised file servers, and maybe doing work off central
compute clusters (which could be formed by the thin-clients themselves), it's
actually quite cheap in terms of deployment (you do not need to constantly
upgrade your PCs every 2-3 yrs).. and regular administration/maintenance
(easier to apply patches, updates.. do backups..)

> Nanyang Technology University of Singapore has a massive Exchange Server
> 60,000 or more). It is said to be much cheaper than SUN and Digital Unix
> based solution.

hmm..  but cheaper than Linux??!! "Say It Isn't So!!"

> Outlook is very convenient with the same organization. Between
> organization, it is not much useful.

it is useful for spreading virii.. d:

> Web-based is the buzz word now. In the real world, I hate the web

AJAX is the buzz word..

> service thingy. After they move the AS400 terminal based ERP application
> to web-service, I need to spend 10 minutes on a 1minutes task originally

Yeah.. the only good web-based software i've used that is comparable to local
software, is probably gmail.. but that's probably because of their massive
computational and communication resources.. i doubt that many other orgs  
could build truly responsive web-apps..

> I do not agree that "bottom-posting doesn't add complexity". To scroll
> to the bottom adds a bit of complexity involved. To leave two empty

the whole point is to "not force anyone to scroll"..

> lines waste bandwidth. Start from the empty line is the natural thing
> to do --> top posting adds less complexity.

it's unnatural to leave blank spaces at the top.. hence, it's silly for
clients to assume that everyone wants to top-post.. if they want to do that
by default, fine.. but at least give users an option to turn it off.. forcing
people to delete the few blank lines at the top for every single email is
silly, and painful on the user..

cheers..

with metta,
shawn tan.

2005\11\25@070640 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> My company was originally using Novell with Pegasus mail. It is rather
> troublesome to use. Upgrade to Exchange greatly reduce the problems.

Oh, painful.  Last time I saw Pegasus Mail in a production environment
was around 1993.  Exchange/Outlook would definitely be a step-up from that!

> No Linux on sight for coporate world yet. We are still using Windows XP
> with Novel server and IBM AS400 ERP server and Oracle server.

Fairly good choices!  XP has been one of the better Windows releases,
Novell servers rarely (if ever) crash, AS400's are workhorses, and
Oracle... well, everyone deals with Oracle, and it works.

> And a Dell Windows computer is cheaper than a Dell Linux computer if
> you want the support.

True.

> Do not get me wrong. I like Linux and I like open source. However I do
> think that the free alternative is not that cheap after all in the coporate
> setup.

You seem to think I'm talking about Linux.  I wasn't.  I use Thunderbird
and Firefox on Windows every day.  Some of my work machines are required
to use Windows XP, but not required to have Office or Outlook installed.

One of the long-term benefits of tools like Thunderbird and Firefox is
that they're almost perfectly cross-platform.  I run T-Bird and Firefox
on Linux, Windows, and even Mac OS X.  They all look and act 100% the
same, other than perhaps how they launch Java virtual machines and
Macromedia Flash for those websites that need those add-ons.

>> That's my opinion on it anyway... a server or server farm with
>> appropriate RAID, speed, and capabilities for 10,000 users on Exchange
>> is enormously expensive, compared to say a farm running postfix,
>> Courier-IMAP, and clients running Thunderbird or Evolution.
>>
> Nanyang Technology University of Singapore has a massive Exchange Server
> setup (20000 to 30000 users or more, including alumni account, maybe
> 60,000 or more). It is said to be much cheaper than SUN and Digital Unix
> based solution.

Oh, Sun.  Yeah, gold-plated.  Sun charges too much.  Seen their stock
price lately... down down down she goes.  Nice hardware, but much of the
value in Sun is:

a) Binary compatibility between OS releases that's better than Linux *by
far*... releasing binaries for Linux (especially statically linked ones)
is a hideously painful process because of all the different versions of
glibc, gcc, etc.

b) Solid hardware that just runs and runs.  Telecommunications networks
use Sun boxes for this reason.  Downtime isn't allowed or expected, and
is always an emergency.  When configured correctly, Sun machines in
high-availability clusters simply don't go down more than a few minutes
a year, or when upgraded on purpose.

But if you can handle a little bit of downtime, a Compaq/Dell/HP (or
generic) server running any other Unix'ish variant that your sysadmin is
comfortable with can provide service *like* a Sun at a much reduced
overall cost.  This isn't limited to Linux -- Yahoo runs mostly on BSD,
for example.  Hotmail also -- used to be all BSD, slowly (and painfully)
converted over to Windows after Microsoft bought them.  Last I checked,
still using BSD for mail reciept front-end servers, but haven't looked
in a couple of years at their SMTP HELO messages.

(OpenBSD is still considered by many to be the most secure OS ever
out-of-the box, and hardest to "un-secure" by making mistakes at the
admin level... in Unix-like OS's anyway.  Novell isn't bad either.
Pretty hard to hack a Novell server if it's on an internal network
behind a firewall and is running IPX without IP!)  ;-)

>> If the organization can culturally deal with using an off-board
>> calendering app (or better a web-based one on their Intranet), since
>> it's rare to see Outlook calendaring used extensively BETWEEN
>> organizations... they can save boatloads of money on software licenses
>> and hardware.  But the cultural shift is sometimes harder than the
>> technological one.
>
> Outlook is very convenient with the same organization. Between
> organization, it is not much useful.

If your organization grows to have a lot of timezones, you'll find
Outlook's calendaring becomes much more "brittle".  Also when people
leave the organization, if they scheduled a standing meeting, that
meeting will have to be removed by an administrator, and a new one will
have to be scheduled in its place -- it's not easy in most environments
to have another person "take over" a meeting's ownership.

Additionally, if the organization is purchased/aquired and e-mail
accounts change and the admins aren't careful, Window's/Exchange's
authentication mechanisms will no longer think you are the owner of your
own calendar events after your e-mail address is migrated to another
Exchange server.  (My current employer somehow messed that one up -- we
were fighting with messed up and duplicated calendars for a month or more.)

None of those is a huge problem, I'm just saying, Outlook calendaring is
far from perfect.  Eventually you run into bumps.

> Web-based is the buzz word now. In the real world, I hate the web
> service thingy. After they move the AS400 terminal based ERP application
> to web-service, I need to spend 10 minutes on a 1minutes task originally
> on the AS400 terminal.

AJAX is helping with this, making the client side feel more like a real
application and not some "click and wait" web page.  Google Maps is a
good example of that type of technology.  It's big "buzz" in Silicon
Valley these days to say you're working on an AJAX application, but
really all it is doing is taking advantage of features that were there
in JavaScript all along and integrating the browser app and server
better via events hidden from the user.

>> Many organizations "front-end" Outlook with regional or departmental
>> Exchange servers, and do the heavy mail transport lifting behind the
>> scenes with Unix or Linux.  The bigger the organization, the more likely
>> they have a system like this in the "back room".
>
> Yes Outlook support other server as well. Outlook express news reader
> is much better than a lot of Unix email client when comes to news reading.

I like RSS readers better these days to gather up my news, but if you
mean USENET postings, OE isn't bad.

{Quote hidden}

Understand.  :-)

>> Of course, some of the debates that language people get into, and the
>> proliferation of more and more slang into English would tend to make me
>> agree -- perhaps English should be taught as a religion!  You have to
>> believe grammar is important, or you will use words like, "Shizzle my
>> zizzle" in daily language.  (No offense meant toward Snoop-Dog,
>> Flava-Flave, or any of the rap music crowd!)
>>
> Luckily English is not taught as religion.

(GRIN) Hopefully you understand I was joking to make a point.

Culturally that explanation method is a very difficult to use, and still
not offend someone in this very International group on PicList.

{Quote hidden}

Interesting.  I never thought of it that way!

>
> Context posting above your name may not be a good idea. ;-)
>> Nate

Another good point!  Agreed, that can be confusing!

Nate

2005\11\25@071158 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/25/05, Shawn Tan <@spam@shawn.tanKILLspamspamaeste.net> wrote:
>
> > I do not agree that "bottom-posting doesn't add complexity". To scroll
> > to the bottom adds a bit of complexity involved. To leave two empty
>
> the whole point is to "not force anyone to scroll"..
>
> > lines waste bandwidth. Start from the empty line is the natural thing
> > to do --> top posting adds less complexity.
>
> it's unnatural to leave blank spaces at the top.. hence, it's silly for
> clients to assume that everyone wants to top-post.. if they want to do that
> by default, fine.. but at least give users an option to turn it off.. forcing
> people to delete the few blank lines at the top for every single email is
> silly, and painful on the user..
>
> cheers..
>
> with metta,
> shawn tan.

Hehehe, the Gmail you like does leave two lines empty on top. I
do not think Gmail guys are anyway associated with Microsoft.
I am using Gmail now and I have left two empty lines on the top
and scroll a bit to do bottom-posting.

When people access email through a mobile-phone or PDA, I think
they will hate bottom posting.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@071834 by Mike Young

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Winter" <KILLspamHDRWKILLspamspamH2Org.demon.co.uk>

> And why do you keep harping on about unix?  This is a matter of etiquette
> and manners, taking account of what
> you are imposing on your readers, and it has nothing to do with platform.
> Unless you think that criticising
> shortcomings (of people and software) is somehow a bad thing, I can't see
> why you are taking that stand.

I just deleted before sending a rather long-winded post about dogma and
browbeating. I rather wish now that I hadn't. That this appears near the
bottom and not at the top is no indication that I agree in any small way
with your 500+ word rant and whinge.

> A: Top posting!
>
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet?

Bite me. Far more annoying are the arrogrant twats presuming to teach others
to communicate.

>
> :-)

2005\11\25@074620 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Mike,

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:18:11 -0600, Mike Young wrote:

> I just deleted before sending a rather long-winded post about dogma and
> browbeating. I rather wish now that I hadn't. That this appears near the
> bottom and not at the top is no indication that I agree in any small way
> with your 500+ word rant and whinge.

Why is my posting a "rant and whinge" whereas those which you agree with (I presume), aren't?

> > A: Top posting!
> >
> > Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet?
>
> Bite me. Far more annoying are the arrogrant twats presuming to teach others
> to communicate.

I see no reason why you should take the discussion into personal insults.


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\11\25@075332 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
Right on!  I don't have time to scroll down looking for one word replies
among the previous text.  I am busy preparing for the National Marching Band
and Goat Herding competition in Pampa Texas March 15.

Pookie

{Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@075808 by M Graff

flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:

>>Bite me. Far more annoying are the arrogrant twats presuming to teach others
>>to communicate.
>
> I see no reason why you should take the discussion into personal insults.

Not only that, but the use of the word "twat" has earned that poster a
one-way ticket onto my ban list.

That's inappropriate on so many levels, doubly so on a technical list.

--Michael

2005\11\25@082652 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> With plain text, what should I do? Shall I add a ">" at the beginning of
> every line?

Not sure about Outlook 2000, but Outlook 2003 can be configured to do
exactly that. (See me other message for where... maybe that helps for
Outlook 2000 also.)

Gerhard

2005\11\25@085803 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/25/05, Shawn Tan <RemoveMEshawn.tanTakeThisOuTspamaeste.net> wrote:
> On Friday 25 November 2005 11:23, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > Do not get me wrong. I like Linux and I like open source. However I do
> > think that the free alternative is not that cheap after all in the coporate
> > setup.
>
> hmmm... i think it depends on how you set it up.. if you have a thin-client
> like setup (say harddiskless), with computers booting off the network, and
> saving data on centralised file servers, and maybe doing work off central
> compute clusters (which could be formed by the thin-clients themselves), it's
> actually quite cheap in terms of deployment (you do not need to constantly
> upgrade your PCs every 2-3 yrs).. and regular administration/maintenance
> (easier to apply patches, updates.. do backups..)

I think NC is dead. Not so sure about the US$100 notebook thingy. I think
it is doomed to fail. PC rules!

> > Nanyang Technology University of Singapore has a massive Exchange Server
> > 60,000 or more). It is said to be much cheaper than SUN and Digital Unix
> > based solution.
>
> hmm..  but cheaper than Linux??!! "Say It Isn't So!!"

Not so sure here. One of my brother once worked for a company. The
company was fined for not enough Office and Windows License. Then
they moved to Linux and Open Office. All the unties and uncles complain
a lot and they have to buy Windows and Office.

Redhat and Novell Linux are both more expensive than Windows. A Dell
Linux desktop will also be more expensive than a Dell PC. Linux Desktop
is fine and I am using it, but only at home.

Just to get MPLAB work under Linux will be long long time to wait.

>
> > Outlook is very convenient with the same organization. Between
> > organization, it is not much useful.
>
> it is useful for spreading virii.. d:

If the admins are doing the job, probably not. If Linux is as popular
as Windows, then virus under Linux will be as many as Windows.
Linux is good but do not blaim Windows too much. My XP is as stable
as my Ubuntu Linux and I will say much more stable than my previous
Redhat Linux 9 setup.

>
> > Web-based is the buzz word now. In the real world, I hate the web
>
> AJAX is the buzz word..

Again, AJAX is just another buzz word. JavaScript and dynamic HTML has
long been there. The IT guys are just doing all these again and again -->
creating buzz word without changing the underlying things. I am not an
IT guy so I may be wrong here.

>
> > service thingy. After they move the AS400 terminal based ERP application
> > to web-service, I need to spend 10 minutes on a 1minutes task originally
>
> Yeah.. the only good web-based software i've used that is comparable to local
> software, is probably gmail.. but that's probably because of their massive
> computational and communication resources.. i doubt that many other orgs
> could build truly responsive web-apps..

Gmail is not any good. With my S$58 per month 2Mbps cable modem
connection, it is still not really fast. In terms of purchasing power, US$1
= S$1 = Chinese RMB 1 = Euro 1.

>
> > I do not agree that "bottom-posting doesn't add complexity". To scroll
> > to the bottom adds a bit of complexity involved. To leave two empty
>
> the whole point is to "not force anyone to scroll"..
>
> > lines waste bandwidth. Start from the empty line is the natural thing
> > to do --> top posting adds less complexity.
>

I do not think interleaved reply (to cut into the middle of a sentense)
like this is any of good.

> it's unnatural to leave blank spaces at the top.. hence, it's silly for
> clients to assume that everyone wants to top-post.. if they want to do that
> by default, fine.. but at least give users an option to turn it off.. forcing
> people to delete the few blank lines at the top for every single email is
> silly, and painful on the user..
>

That is what Gmail does --> leave two lines on top. I do not know how
to turn it off yet.

> cheers..
>
> with metta,
> shawn tan.

By the way, I understand what "with meta" means. How many others
know this?

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@090516 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
<Gmail Empty Line 1>
<Gmail Empty Line 2>
On 11/25/05, Gerhard Fiedler <spamBeGonelistsspamBeGonespamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> > With plain text, what should I do? Shall I add a ">" at the beginning of
> > every line?
>
> Not sure about Outlook 2000, but Outlook 2003 can be configured to do
> exactly that. (See me other message for where... maybe that helps for
> Outlook 2000 also.)
>
> Gerhard
>
However , the ">" thingy is annoying when it gets to
">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>".
I do not think my colleagues like to see the ">" within the
company as well.

One more thing, I remember that Outlook 2k warns about this
setting as well. I forget the exact warning.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@093548 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/25/05, Nate Duehr <TakeThisOuTnateEraseMEspamspam_OUTnatetech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I used Sun machine before. I remember it was a Enterprise 450 server
running Solaris 2.6. I remember was not so fast when running SABER
circuit simulation.

My brother in China telecom tells me they are still using Sun in some
applications but increasingly moving to Linux. They are using JAVA though.
China Telecom does not want to use .Net/Windows.

I am not so sure if Nanyang Technological University still runs the
admin job using Open VMS. It is said to be very very stable.

As for Novell, I think the Novel Server business is dying and I think
our company moves to XP to prepare for the move to Active Directory.

I do not know much about BSDs and I think Linux is moving very
fast so that Linux/Windows will be the two dominant forces later.

Once Business Linux matures, maybe there will be less players
(Redhat/Novell/Debian or Ubuntu) that will enter the coporate world.
Then maybe it is easier to release software acorss major Linux
versions. Of course there will still be a lot of Linux versions available
for personal use.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@093958 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:00:07PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> >I like your posting style: context posting. However the email
> >clients are not making this easier and this is across Linux
> >and Windows. Few people are using context posting since it
> >requires more effort on the user' part. I do admire those
> >who do this.
>
> I haven't seen any significant difference in how this works in any
> e-mail client in many years.

It's the client that defines how easy/difficult it is to do context
posting.

Here at Georgia Tech I still use Mutt: a Unix based text E-mail client.
When I do replies it drops me into the vi editor. This makes it easy
to context reply, and so I do so.

At work I use the Outlook webmail client. When replying it doesn't
post a leading edge of anything in front of the quoted text. This
makes it dificult to context post because you have to have a visual
separation between the quoted and new text.

> I'm not sure what you're referring to about clients making it more
> difficult.

Clients that makes no differentiation between quoted and new text.

{Quote hidden}

Agreed. It's a syndrome I see with my wife. See just likes her E-mail to
look cute. And fonts and colors make it cure. It rarely transmits any
additional information content however.

> I would think that would be enough right there for most people to look
> for a better client, but most don't.  They take the path of least
> resistance and use either whatever is provided by some IT person or came
> with the machine.

True. For example at work I use the webmail client. If I really wanted to
work hard at it, I could equip all of my machines with an IMAP based
local client, like Evolution. But it does take time and energy to configure
each client.

The best solution would be to run my on webmail server, such as SquirrelMail,
and build the interface to my liking. It takes time and effort however.


>
> This really isn't [EE] at all, so I'm going to stop now unless you move
> it to [OT].  Just not sure if you read [OT], so last reply here.

I'll repost to OT.

BAJ

2005\11\25@095955 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Friday 25 November 2005 13:58, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > hmmm... i think it depends on how you set it up.. if you have a
> > thin-client like setup (say harddiskless), with computers booting off the
> I think NC is dead. Not so sure about the US$100 notebook thingy. I think
> it is doomed to fail. PC rules!

Nah, it's not dead yet.. they've just renamed it to thin-clients.. d: But
through my observation of the current setup that we have over here, it seems
a good concept.. boot from network, diskless, running software off a central
cluster..

> > > Server 60,000 or more). It is said to be much cheaper than SUN and
> > > Digital Unix based solution.
> > hmm..  but cheaper than Linux??!! "Say It Isn't So!!"
> Not so sure here. One of my brother once worked for a company. The
> they moved to Linux and Open Office. All the unties and uncles complain
> a lot and they have to buy Windows and Office.

hehe.. that's the normal situation.. the key is to start 'aunties' and uncles
off on something different.. it's not impossible..

> Redhat and Novell Linux are both more expensive than Windows. A Dell
> Linux desktop will also be more expensive than a Dell PC. Linux Desktop
> is fine and I am using it, but only at home.

hmm... i think it all depends on how you define "expensive".. most of my
friends who have switched to linux.. didn't switch because it was "free" but
switched because they got fed up of MS screwing them over.. for example, the
most recent convert, had a few key files corrupted on FAT32, reinstalled
windows, but his OEM installer didn't allow him to select NTFS for
installation.. it automagically installed everything.. and another OEM
installer from another brand wouldn't work on his machine.. so, he decided to
install Linux instead.. and has taken 2 weeks to learn it up.. and is doing
everything he needs on it now.. he even managed to get some of his custom
software running on WINE.. impressive..

> > it is useful for spreading virii.. d:
> If the admins are doing the job, probably not. If Linux is as popular
> as Windows, then virus under Linux will be as many as Windows.

this is just FUD that is spread around.. the core architecture of Linux itself
prevents much of the problems.. And if that's the case, most of the world's
web servers run Linux + Apache.. Shouldn't there be more worms or such
created to take these machines down?? not to mention that patching response
times for open source software is much faster than for windows..

> Again, AJAX is just another buzz word. JavaScript and dynamic HTML has
> long been there. The IT guys are just doing all these again and again -->
> creating buzz word without changing the underlying things. I am not an
> IT guy so I may be wrong here.

you're not wrong.. AJAX is just a combination of jscripting and dhtml.. it
just sounds cool...

> Gmail is not any good. With my S$58 per month 2Mbps cable modem
> connection, it is still not really fast. In terms of purchasing power, US$1
> = S$1 = Chinese RMB 1 = Euro 1.

hehe.. ever had a standard lunch cost you S$30?? easily costs RMB 30 in
Beijing.. I'm now using a new scale called the "sandwich" cost.. as in, how
many sandwiches (in the UK) does the cost of something equal to.. like a new
pair of sweat pants may cost 10 sandwiches.. makes it all easier to swallow
for me..

> By the way, I understand what "with meta" means. How many others
> know this?

heh.. from wiki: Metta is a Pali word meaning unconditional loving-kindness.
Any theravadian buddhist should know this..

cheers..

with metta,
shawn tan.

2005\11\25@100630 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Peter wrote regarding 'RE: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Fri, Nov 25 at 05:49:
> One argument in favor of top posting I didn't read about here yet. In
> medium to high volume lists top posting makes it a lot faster to
> determine if someone adds something significant to the argument and the
> posting is worth reading.
>
> It avoids having to scroll down only to find someone gave a one line
> funny remark. It cuts down on time needed to sort chaf from corn and
> this definetely matters when subscribing to a lot of lists.

The scrolling problem is a result of quoting too much content in a
reply, not a problem of top- vs/ bottom-posting.  Proper context
quoting and trimming is just as important as using a reasonable
quoting style.

I subsribe to about 20 mailing lists, most of which have formally
defined nettiquite rules which include the suggestion to bottom-post.
That's not because members are holier-than-thou bigots who won't
listen to alternate viewopints, it's beause bottom-posting has simply
proven to work better for most people over a couple of decades of use.
I do not find those difficult to read, and the time it takes to hit
the "page down" button is less than the time it takes to read and
understand things in reverse order. :)

That said, the only reason I mentioned it to begin with was that
someone changed posting styles mid-thread.  That, IMHO, is the biggest
problem.  People should *not* top-post a reply and include multiple
levels of quoted context which is already bottom-posted, or
vice-versa.  Annoying as it is to read content backwards, it's even
more annoying to have to jump around.

--Danny

2005\11\25@101152 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I prefer top posting because it is faster for me to scan. There are a lot of
posts that I ignore because they are bottom posted.

When I reply to a post it is easier to trim off the irrelevant verbiage on
the bottom rather than the top.
I think the real problem is the Reader. I use Outlook express and Forte
Agent. Neither is exactly what I want.

The ideal reader would let me choose how I would like to view the mail, top
or bottom.
It would also save what I want saved in a user friendly format rather than
some proprietary file type. Saving threads for future reference is clumsy!

It should be reasonably priced. I don't believe Outlook is available as a
standalone application and Office is a bit pricey for a lot of us.

I find that Goggle Groups the most comfortable reading for Newsgroups.
Unfortunately there is no way to mark what you have already read.

Good luck on the contest. Is there much difference in Marching Band and Goat
Herding contests?

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@103052 by Wayne Topa

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen(RemoveMExiaofancspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com) is reported to have said:
{Quote hidden}

Xiaofan

   Yes!  This post from you was easy to follow!  
   
   Compare it to your posts from earlier in the week, and see the
   difference.

Wayne    
     
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
_______________________________________________________

2005\11\25@103056 by Wayne Topa

flavicon
face
M Graff(EraseMEexplorer-piclistspamflame.org) is reported to have said:
> Howard Winter wrote:
>

Howard didn't write this.  A bit too much trimming? it should have
had:
Mike Young <RemoveMEmikewhyEraseMEspamEraseMEsbcglobal.net> wrote
> >>Bite me. Far more annoying are the arrogrant twats presuming to teach
> >>others to communicate.

But your Thunderbird didn't include it, or you trimmed it.

This is what Olin mentioned earlier in the week.  Attributing quotes
to the wrong person.

I think Mike might have meant twits as I resemble that rather than
what he wrote.  :-)

Wayne
--
Unix IS user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
_______________________________________________________

2005\11\25@113928 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Xiaofan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Fri, Nov 25 at 08:24:
> Redhat and Novell Linux are both more expensive than Windows. A Dell
> Linux desktop will also be more expensive than a Dell PC. Linux Desktop
> is fine and I am using it, but only at home.

You haven't researched this, have you? :)  Here's the actual costs,
for future information.  The upshot is that Redhat and SuSE both cost
less than the cheapest Windows Server 2003 option and can do more out
of the box.

Ubuntu Linux:
   purchase cost: $0
   paid support: $100/$250 desktop, $400/$700 server
   www.ubuntulinux.org/support/supportoptions/support/supportoptions/paidsupport/
   Note that you get support for *everything* - mail, web, DNS, SQL, OS,
   etc.  Not just support for the OS.

SuSE/Novell Enterprise server:
   purchase cost: $349/year with support

RedHat EL
   Purchase cost: $349 with basic support, $799 with 24x7 support
   http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/server/

Microsoft Windows:
   Windows 2003 server: $999 for 5 clients, plus $199/5 extra clients
   www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx
   Windows Support: $245/call
   support.microsoft.com/?LN=en-us&x=8&y=10&scid=gp%3Ben-us%3Bofferprophone
   Exchange server: $699 plus $67/user up to 500 users
   www.microsoft.com/exchange/howtobuy/medium.mspx
   Exchange support, $245/call
   SQL server: $3,899 plus $739/5 users plus $146/additional user
   Support: $245/call

So, let's see.  I can get Novell linux, for $349 which includes web,
mail, database, and OS.  I can get Ubuntu Linux, which includes web,
mail, database, and an OS for $0.  Both have *unlimited* client access
licenses, so more than 5 people can use all services.  Or I can get
Windows 2003 server with an SQL server and mail server for $5597, and
only 5 people can use it.  Say I have to make 25 support calls, which
is what Ubuntu's most expensive $700 option gives.  Linux - $700.
Windows - $6125.

Even if I run Apache and MySQL on my Windows 2003 server, it still
costs $999 to have an unsupported Windows server which will be slower
than a $700 *supported* Linux server.

I can't see a single way that a Windows server costs less than a Linux
server, unless you use Windows XP as a server.  Buy Windows XP
professional for $299.  You now have a desktop OS, which is
unsupported, and you've saved $50 over SuSE - but you didn't get any
server software.  For another $100, you could've gotten a supported
Ubuntu system with all server software.

Windows is *not* cheaper than Linux at the software licensing level.
Not even close.  There are situations where Windows makes sense, and
where it's actually a good solution (MS SQL server is really a very
good DBMS, and you need Windows to host it), but there aren't any
situations where comparable Windows servers cost less than Linux.  In
the worst case, buy your Dell machine with the cheaper Windows
installed (which isn't the server, but a workstation install) and put
$0 Ubuntu on, buying support as necessary.

> Just to get MPLAB work under Linux will be long long time to wait.

All of my PIC development happens under Linux.  http://www.gnupic.org/
is a good place to start looking. :)

--Danny

2005\11\25@152657 by Mike Young

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Winter" <RemoveMEHDRWspam_OUTspamKILLspamH2Org.demon.co.uk>


{Quote hidden}

No comment about dogmattic or brow-beating? There is more than one right way
to do almost everything. The presumption you make by propounding the "one
true way", as though you hold some monopoly on truth is totally and
completely offensive. The writer, not the reader, is responsible for
presenting his thoughts efficiently and effectively. Does this make it a
rant, whine, or a whinge? I'm pleased to be banned from the company of your
ilk.

2005\11\25@170159 by olin piclist

face picon face
Changed tag to OT.

Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> Actually I am using Outlook 2000 at work and it is
> very hard for me not to top-posting when using
> Outlook 2000 at work.

I use Outlook Express on both Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and it's very
easy to reply as I'm doing now.  I don't understand what the problem is.
You hit CTRL-R and it opens an editable mail window seeded with the original
text preceeded by "> " on each line.  You then delete the lines that aren't
relevant and insert your comment anywhere you want.  Maybe you don't have
Outlook set up for plain text mail sending?  This must be just a parameters
issue.

I also run OEQuoteFix.  It cleans up the mess when multiple levels of
quoting make the text wrap all funny.  It's not perfect, but on ballance
it's better than not having it.

> However I can see that more and more people are using
> top-post and I like it more than other styles.

That doesn't make it easy to read or a good idea.

> Or is it still justified by some engineering/scientific
> reasoning?

Mostly by common sense and plain courtesy.  Top posting may save you a
second or two, but makes it annoying to read.  That's pretty arrogant and
inconsiderate on a list like this where there are 1500 readers of every
message.  When there are over 100 messages/day and many separate threads
going on, many people aren't going to remember exactly what was said last
that you are replying to.  Even if they remember every message, with so many
things going on simultaneously plus the list server delays, it's not obvious
at all what a bare reply is replying to.  If the context of a statement
doesn matter, then you should delete the original message completely.
However, most of the time it's needed for continuity, but of course that
implies that it must be read *before* the reply.  That makes original first,
then reply, the natural order.

A: Top posters.
Q: Who are the most arrogant people on email lists?


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\25@172113 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> Not sure about Outlook 2000, but Outlook 2003 can be configured to do
>> exactly that. (See me other message for where... maybe that helps for
>> Outlook 2000 also.)
>>
> However , the ">" thingy is annoying when it gets to
> ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>".
> I do not think my colleagues like to see the ">" within the
> company as well.

In general, I think I would put on a kill file anybody who sent me such a
message. 40 levels of quoting is just plain ridiculous, whether top or
bottom or sideways. (Let alone on a cell phone screen, which was another
argument for top posting.)

Are you sure this is the level you want to discuss the issue? I mean if you
want a meaningful discussion, you need to come up with meaningful examples.

Gerhard

2005\11\25@172914 by olin piclist

face picon face
Changed to OT.

Scott Dattalo wrote:
> So as long as enough context is provided so that the reply
> is coherent, then reasonable people will have no problem with
> top-posting.

It's not just about providing context, but also the ease of access to that
context.  Reading a top posted reply can be annoying because you have to
scoll around a lot to figure out the context.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\25@175057 by olin piclist

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> This is what I get when I hit reply button when I am using
> Outlook 2k at work.
>
> "{Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@175706 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> So as long as enough context is provided so that the reply is coherent,
>> then reasonable people will have no problem with top-posting.
>
> It's not just about providing context, but also the ease of access to that
> context.  

I guess that's really what it boils down to. It's not about top or bottom
or whatever "posting style", it is about the work that is required to:

- think what it is exactly that you are responding to,
- copy that out of the original or move your cursor there, depending on
your mail reader,
- put that all together into an easy to read message, that provides the
relevant (and only the relevant) context from prior messages to your
comment.

Once you do that, you'll notice that you don't top post, you don't bottom
post, you just plain post easy to read messages.


> Reading a top posted reply can be annoying because you have to scoll
> around a lot to figure out the context.

IMO the thing with top posting is that if the poster did provide the
relevant context within his comments, the appended prior message(s) are not
relevant anymore and should have been deleted. Which would have made the
post not being a top post... and which also, reversing the logic, means
that in a top post the context was either not provided where it was needed
or unnecessary context was sent.

IMO the thing with what's generally called bottom posting is that this is a
complete misnomer, not helpful at all for a discussion about its virtues.


And Olin wrote also in a different message:

> I would love to see the list server reject messages that end with one of
> the footers the list server automatically adds.  

Or that contain the footer... I'd like to suggest this idea for some sort
of award :)

Gerhard

2005\11\25@180715 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Topposting and there will be no such problems.

We all agree triming is a good thing. Once trimmed to very short, scroll
is not a problem for bottom-posting and I think both are accepted.
However in that case, I still think top-posting is slightly better.

Regards,
Xiaofan

On 11/25/05, Wayne Topa <RemoveMElinuxoneTakeThisOuTspamspamintergate.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2005\11\25@181305 by olin piclist

face picon face
Shawn Tan wrote:
> but when O/OE come out, it automatically left a few empty lines at the
> top and placed the cursor there.. so, in order not to top post, i'd
> have to delete off the few blank lines..

Oh, no!  That would take at least a few 100 milliseconds.

******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\25@181613 by olin piclist

face picon face
Peter van Hoof wrote:
> One argument in favor of top posting I didn't read about here yet. In
> medium to high volume lists top posting makes it a lot faster to
> determine if someone adds something significant to the argument and the
> posting is worth reading.
>
> It avoids having to scroll down only to find someone gave a one line
> funny remark. It cuts down on time needed to sort chaf from corn and
> this definetely matters when subscribing to a lot of lists.

But the fault here isn't interleaved posting, it's failure to trim material
relevant to the reply.  It's hard to imagine a one line funny reply with the
sentence or two it refers to wouldn't fit nicely on most people email view
panes.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\25@181746 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
<Gmail empty line 1>
<Gmail empty line 2>
On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:
> You're settings aren't right.  For one thing you're not getting the leading
> "> " on each line of replied-to text.  I'm using Outlook Express on Windows
> XP right now, and here are all my settings that I think might be relevant:
>
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > READ check "Read all messages in plain text"
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND check "Include message in reply"
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND uncheck "Reply to messages using the format
>  in which they were sent"
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND > Mail Sending Format > check Plain Text
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND > Mail Sending Format > Plain Text Settings >
>  check MIME
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND > Mail Sending Format > Plain Text Settings >
>  Encode text using: None
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND > Mail Sending Format > Plain Text Settings >
>  Automatically warp text at 76 characters when sending
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND > Mail Sending Format > Plain Text Settings >
>  check "Indent the original text with" and select "> " for "when replying
> or  forwarding"

Why do yo think Microsoft make this so difficult? They are stupid? No, I do
not think so. Microsoft is very good at UI design and one of the best in
human engineering: I like their mouse as well.

The setting of Outlook 2k is different. One more thing, in Outlook 2k,
this will mess the spell checker which I do use when I am using Outlook
2000. The Gmail spelling checker now I am using really sucks!

Why do you think Gmail leaves two empty lines at the top? Are they
stupid? I do not think so.

Personally I also think this ">>>>" thingy can be very messy as well.

Miss-quoting is also a problem. Top-posting avoids the problem.

> By the way, the settings above also inhibit HTML, which is really nice for
> dealing with spam.  Since the browser is never run on HTML content, links
> are not automatically followed and browser holes can't be exploited unless
> you actively display the HTML.
>

I know HTML and RTF are not so nice to send to mailing lists. However it
is thr norm in corporate setup. More and more listings are using HTML.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@182105 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistSTOPspamspamEraseMEembedinc.com> wrote:
> Changed to OT.
>
> Scott Dattalo wrote:
> > So as long as enough context is provided so that the reply
> > is coherent, then reasonable people will have no problem with
> > top-posting.
>
> It's not just about providing context, but also the ease of access to that
> context.  Reading a top posted reply can be annoying because you have to
> scoll around a lot to figure out the context.
>
I am very surpised that Scott has such an open view. Interesting to know.
Anyway, if one trim the original to very short, I think both top and bottom
posting should be allowed and it is just a personal preference and a mail
client preference. Actually I think top-posting here is even slightly better.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@182851 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGonespamembedinc.com> wrote:
> Changed tag to OT.
> > Or is it still justified by some engineering/scientific
> > reasoning?
>
> Mostly by common sense and plain courtesy.  Top posting may save you a
> second or two, but makes it annoying to read.  That's pretty arrogant and
> inconsiderate on a list like this where there are 1500 readers of every
> message.  When there are over 100 messages/day and many separate threads
> going on, many people aren't going to remember exactly what was said last
> that you are replying to.  Even if they remember every message, with so many
> things going on simultaneously plus the list server delays, it's not obvious
> at all what a bare reply is replying to.  If the context of a statement
> doesn matter, then you should delete the original message completely.
> However, most of the time it's needed for continuity, but of course that
> implies that it must be read *before* the reply.  That makes original first,
> then reply, the natural order.
>
> A: Top posters.
> Q: Who are the most arrogant people on email lists?
>
To be honest, I hate this long
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
thing to teach people not to top post. This is not top post. This is
the reverse order of "context posting" or "trim posting" or "interleaved
reply". It is more annoying to see this than to receiving email asking
one not to top-post.

http://www.lionsgrove.com/topposting.html
"This is usually followed by an insanely simple example which, incidentally,
could all use a bit of snipping for the "he wrote:, she wrote:, bob wrote:, god
wrote:" prefixes. Newsgroup posts are rarely that simple, at least from
what I've seen"

mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@183215 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
<I am doing both top and bottom post to have a comparsion>
I am using Danny's answer to reply you. In this case, do you think
top posting is better?

Regards,
Xiaofan

On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <EraseMEolin_piclistspamEraseMEembedinc.com> wrote:
> Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> > Outlook and outlook express are decent email clients. They are
> > also the de-facto standard in the corporate world. So people
> > will still top-post when they use Outlook or Outlook Express.
>
> Nonsense.  I use Outlook Express and it's very easy to in-line post and
> trim.  This must be an issue of settings.  I'd be happy to tell you all my
> settings if you're willing to in-line post if it becomes easy for you.
>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Danny Sauer <@spam@piclist@spam@spamspam_OUTdannysauer.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2005 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistspamKILLspammit.edu>


Gerhard wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?'
on Fri, Nov 25 at 07:24:
> You can configure Outlook to prefix every line of a message you are
> replying to with e.g. ">". (Tools | Options | Preferences | E-mail Options
> ... | On replies and forwards.) This makes context posting quite possible,
> even with Outlook. We need to take into account that while nowadays most

It's worth noting for those who spell check that this breaks spell
checking (in Outlook).  The checker somehow is unable to figure out
what you typed v/s what you replied to, and checks even the quoted
text.  I find that exceedingly irritating, as many people I reply to
don't spell well. :)  It's also irritating because almost every other
mail program doesn't have a problem with that...

--Danny

I am using Danny's answer to reply you. In this case, do you think
bottom posting is better?

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@184143 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/25/05, Wayne Topa <.....linuxonespam_OUTspamintergate.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hehehe, the Gmail you like does leave two lines empty on top. I
> > do not think Gmail guys are anyway associated with Microsoft.
> > I am using Gmail now and I have left two empty lines on the top
> > and scroll a bit to do bottom-posting.
> >
> > When people access email through a mobile-phone or PDA, I think
> > they will hate bottom posting.
>
> Xiaofan
>
>    Yes!  This post from you was easy to follow!
>
>    Compare it to your posts from earlier in the week, and see the
>    difference.
>
> Wayne
>
That is because I replied at home and I am using Gmail at home.
At work I am using Outlook 2k and probably I will still top-post but
I will try to use context posting and see if I can adapt to it.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@185309 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Danny Sauer <TakeThisOuTpiclist.....spamTakeThisOuTdannysauer.com> wrote:
> Xiaofan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Fri, Nov 25 at 08:24:
> > Redhat and Novell Linux are both more expensive than Windows. A Dell
> > Linux desktop will also be more expensive than a Dell PC. Linux Desktop
> > is fine and I am using it, but only at home.
>
> You haven't researched this, have you? :)  Here's the actual costs,
> for future information.  The upshot is that Redhat and SuSE both cost
> less than the cheapest Windows Server 2003 option and can do more out
> of the box.

Serverwise, Redhat/Suse/Ubuntu(not yet) offer good alternatives. I am talking
about Desktop. It is cheaper to buy a Windows desktop. If one decides not
to use office, Open Office is available on Windows as well as Linux.
Lot of free/open software are available for Windows as well.

>
> > Just to get MPLAB work under Linux will be long long time to wait.
>
> All of my PIC development happens under Linux.  http://www.gnupic.org/
> is a good place to start looking. :)
>
> --Danny

Do you frequent GNUPIC list? I am active there as well. I like Linux but I
like them to be used together. Linux/Windows is better than only Linux or
only Windows. I am using a WinXp/Ubuntu dual-boot machine.

People should be encouraged to try out Linux. However it is just not ready
yet for the corporate setup.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@185811 by olin piclist

face picon face
Shawn Tan wrote:
> And if that's the case, most of
> the world's web servers run Linux + Apache.. Shouldn't there be more
> worms or such created to take these machines down??

No, since those machines don't have dumb users on them.

It's generally the user GUI applications that let virii in, ususally aided
by badly chosen defaults and user's who are totally flattered when the third
cousin's uncle's grandson of the widow of the Nigerian minister of oil has
asked *them* to help get $20M out of a frozen bank account, for a fee of
$2M.  Wow, I could retire on that for just a filling out a few papers!

Linux hasn't been plagued by worms and such as much because 1) there are a
lot fewer Linux installations, and 2) Linux users are still much more an
elite group, much like computer users in the 1980's.  Back then you actually
had to *know* something to use a computer.  Nowadays any moron can use a
computer, and they are going to run Windows.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\25@193737 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <TakeThisOuTolin_piclistKILLspamspamspamembedinc.com> wrote:
> Shawn Tan wrote:
> > And if that's the case, most of
> > the world's web servers run Linux + Apache.. Shouldn't there be more
> > worms or such created to take these machines down??
>
> No, since those machines don't have dumb users on them.
>
> Linux hasn't been plagued by worms and such as much because 1) there are a
> lot fewer Linux installations, and 2) Linux users are still much more an
> elite group, much like computer users in the 1980's.  Back then you actually
> had to *know* something to use a computer.  Nowadays any moron can use a
> computer, and they are going to run Windows.
>

I tend to agree with this even people will think this is FUD. However the
users are not real stupid. They just do what makes their life easier. Top
posting is one of them when using OE/Outlook.
The software designers need to consider average Joe users, not only the
elite.

Linux is inherently more stable? Look at the code. I am not good at
programming but I see a lot of "FixMe" things there.
I think once the Linux developers remove all those "FIXME" things in
the source code, it will be much a better system. But is it all possible?
I guess there are also many "FIXME" things in Windows. We can not
see it since it is closed source. However we know it and Mr Gates
knows it.

If we consider reliability of complex systems, Windows/Linux are
all very complicated systems and they bounds to be bugs. Microsoft
used to have bad attitutes but they are doing a better job now. Linux
is also doing better jobs now. However both will still have lots of bugs.
That is life and most of business softwares are without warranty,
free or not free, open source or not open source. ;-(

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\25@193746 by Wayne Topa

flavicon
face
Shawn Tan(.....shawn.tanspamRemoveMEaeste.net) is reported to have said:
>
> but when O/OE come out, it automatically left a few empty lines at the top and
> placed the cursor there.. so, in order not to top post, i'd have to delete
> off the few blank lines..

I seem to recall that there is an RFC that makes it mandatory to have
one (1) blank line after the headers.  I have no idea why gmail adds
another, but that blank line is nothing compared to the multiple lines
not realated to a reply that are not trimmed off.
>
> why most unix people don't top post: cause there are alternative email clients
> to O/OE and they don't assume that you want to top post..

If you insist on top posting, go ahead.  If it's too much work for you
to make your reply easier for others to read nad understand, go ahead
and top post.  No one is forcing you to do anything else.  This is
just a disscusion of the Good or Bad of top posting.  

I would think some people would appreciate the information that has
come out in this thread.  Olin has shown how to make context posting
possible with Outlook by simply configuring it correctly.  Maybe
someone else will show how to configure Outlook/mozilla/Thunderbird to
thread properly as well.  Wouldn't it be nice to not have to figure
out what thread a message like "Subject: [PIC} Re: 16F648A" belongs to
out of the 500-600 I have above it?  If only he (or is mail client) had
included the MessageID header we wouldn't have to wonder what thread
it belongs to or just delete it in frustration.

I commend Xiao Fan for asking the question, even if he steadfastly
sticks to top posting.  It's his right, after all.

Wayne
--
Signatures > 4 lines are rude.
_______________________________________________________

2005\11\25@194752 by olin piclist

face picon face
Here is the poster child for all that is wrong with top posting:


Steph Smith wrote:
> Politially correct torture, beat you up,
> then give you a questioinare on how you 'felt'... ;-)
> {Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@195137 by olin piclist

face picon face
Wayne Topa wrote:
> I seem to recall that there is an RFC that makes it mandatory to have
> one (1) blank line after the headers.

Yes, that is how the header section is delimited from the content section as
defined in RFC 821 (STD 10 if I remember correctly).

However, mail clients hide that blank line from the user.  If I'm right, you
can prove this by deleting the blank lines but still have your message
understood as headers and content.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\25@200111 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
That is not the fault of top-posting. We all agree that trimming is
important. To reply without trimming is a bad thing with top-posting
and bottom-posting.

Regards,
Xiaofan (Using Gmail so I can choose Top/Bottom/Context posting)

On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistspamspamBeGoneembedinc.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2005\11\25@203056 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Let me summarize my points after reading all this thread.

1) We all agree that triming is important.
2) I agree that context-posting is better for longer thread
if trimming and quoting properly.
3) I do not agree that bottom-posting is much better than
top-posting for long thread.
4)  I think that top-posting should be more prefrered for
short thread.
5) Lots of email clients by default tend to lead to top
posting. Are they all stupid? No. I think there are many
instanced that top posting is actually good.
6) The A: Q: A: Q: to educate people is counter-productive.
7) Email clients decide the style of posting.
8) Please do not think top posting are evil.

Another finding is that bottom-posting often lead to longer
emails. In the corporate setup, I think top-posting should be
preferred and I think it is.

A good one.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2003-September/msg01165.html

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 12:59, ne... wrote:
> Could you please, please configure your e-mail clients
> to not top post.

Please let's not start a war.  Just deal with what people use unless
it's horribly wrong and could use correction -- then do it as a reply to
the offending post.  At the least a link to an authoritative netiquette
site would justify your request.  I did a quick google search and
quickly found that business users / newer internet users are thought to
be the typical top-posters (as an old internet user and a business user,
I can corroborate that).

Below are some discussions I found.  Bottom line: bottom-posting is the
norm for usenet news and should be the default (but not only) option for
geek email.

[Authoritative] Jargon Dictionary:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html (note justifications are
mostly outdated)

[Authoritative] Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/

Origin of bottom-posting and anti-top-posters on Usenet:
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html

Slighty-pro top-posting rant: http://www.lionsgrove.com/topposting.html

Slightly-anti top-posting rant:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm

Mozilla to allow (not default) top-posting & why:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62429#c77

Blind usenet readers don't like top-posting:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_chr0.htm

Martin

PS--for the record, I'm all for top-posting on small threads like this
one.  rg's hopefully ironic reply to your post was a perfect example.

2005\11\25@211151 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Xiaofan wrote:
> Another finding is that bottom-posting often lead to longer
> emails. In the corporate setup, I think top-posting should be
> preferred and I think it is.

I tend to agree with the above statement.

A quick review of messages in my sent folder reveals that I tend to
bottom-post when replying to PicList messages, and top-post when replying to
business e-mail.

I think the crucial difference is that threaded discussions are read by many
people, while business communication normally takes place between two people
(I'm not sure if this was already pointed out by someone, I did not read all
messages in this thread).

The advantage of top posting in the latter case is that you don't need to
scroll down to see the reply. Both parties are assumed to be familiar with
the context.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2005\11\25@212021 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Mr. Young is no longer with the PICList.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
jamesnewtonEraseMEspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com




> {Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@214209 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
The official position of the PICList is that you can post top or bottom but
please:

1. Trim the post you are replying to.

2. Change the topic tag (and the subject) when you change the subject.

3. If you don't like something that someone did or said, complain OFF -
FREAKING - LIST!!!

NOT.

ON.

THE.

(*@#$)(%)!

LIST.


Was that clear enough?

Send an email to me or directly to the person, NOT to the list.

Name calling, personal insults, etc.. Will get you kicked off the list.

We also don't allow religious discussion in the sense that we will not
discuss the "unknowable" or hash over matters of opinion that can not be
proven one way or the other.

In this thread, there have been some good points on both sides. Olin
explained how to bottom post with OE, (nice, thank you Olin) and others have
pointed out how maintaining the order of reading and including enough of the
prior post to set the context is a valuable attribute of bottom posting.
Others have pointed out how top posting is easier and that it is up to the
person posting to compose the best message they can.

As someone reading the post, as soon as you see that it is a top post, you
can simply choose to ignore it. Let others deal with the pain. If you don't
like top posting, just skip it and go on. No need to be rude, no need to go
on and on. Just let it go. One member has been removed because of this topic
being taken as religion and getting to the level of personal insults.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
RemoveMEjamesnewtonEraseMEspamspam_OUTpiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com




> {Original Message removed}

2005\11\25@233715 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Xiaofan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Fri, Nov 25 at 17:19:
> On 11/26/05, Olin Lathrop <@spam@olin_piclistRemoveMEspamEraseMEembedinc.com> wrote:
> > You're settings aren't right.  For one thing you're not getting
> > the leading "> " on each line of replied-to text.  I'm using
> > Outlook Express on Windows XP right now, and here are all my
> > settings that I think might be relevant:
[... instructions ...]
>
> Why do yo think Microsoft make this so difficult? They are stupid?
> No, I do not think so. Microsoft is very good at UI design and one
> of the best in human engineering: I like their mouse as well.

They're the best in interface design, but they intentionally made it
difficult to make their email program behave like a large number of
people would prefer?  Hmm, one of these things doesn't make sense.  A
good UI design doesn't make simple tasks difficult, and one thing that
should definitely be simple in an email program is choosing the
preferred format to send and the preferred format in which to receive,
when there's a choice.

The author of mutt said it best when he said "all mail clients suck,
this one just sucks less". :)  Every mail program has some irritating
behavior.  One of Outlook's irritating features is that its
configuration interface is both overly complex and excessively
limiting.  That's bad UI, and was probably only allowed out the door
because Outlook is supposed to be used in corporate environments with
an Exchange back end and dedicated sysadmins confirugint the program.
End users aren't supposed to ever see most of the Outlook config
stuff.  So, fixing a bad UI would have cost money that MS probably
deemed to be a waste.  "Let's just add semi-transparent drop shadows
and new icons instead!  People will see the shiny, pretty new program
and not care that it's a royal pain to configure!"

The MS mouse originally looked just like every other 2-button mouse,
but they eventually fixed that shortcoming.  I've got a terrible
Microsoft serial mouse in my basement right now, in fact.  It's shaped
kind of like a house (being an "MS Home product", that makes sense,
until one realizes that it's a *mouse* and not a model residence).

--Danny

2005\11\25@233747 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
> > > So as long as enough context is provided so that the reply
> > > is coherent, then reasonable people will have no problem with
> > > top-posting.
> >

> > Scott Dattalo wrote:
> > It's not just about providing context, but also the ease of access to that
> > context.  Reading a top posted reply can be annoying because you have to
> > scoll around a lot to figure out the context.
> >

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:21:01AM +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I am very surpised that Scott has such an open view. Interesting to know.
> Anyway, if one trim the original to very short, I think both top and bottom
> posting should be allowed and it is just a personal preference and a mail
> client preference. Actually I think top-posting here is even slightly better.

Context posting is how people typically read. Top posting is like having a FAQ
with all of the answers at the top and all of the questions after the answers.

Humans read in context. Postings should be written in context.

Trimming is orthogonal to the issue.

BAJ

2005\11\25@234349 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 09:30:56AM +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Let me summarize my points after reading all this thread.
>
> 1) We all agree that triming is important.

Yes.

> 2) I agree that context-posting is better for longer thread
>  if trimming and quoting properly.

No. Context posting is how humans read. So it's always better
no matter the context.

> 3) I do not agree that bottom-posting is much better than
> top-posting for long thread.

Context posting is always better.

> 4)  I think that top-posting should be more prefrered for
> short thread.

Top posting puts the cart before the horse. It breaks
causality in reading. It should never be preferred.

> 5) Lots of email clients by default tend to lead to top
> posting. Are they all stupid? No. I think there are many
> instanced that top posting is actually good.

Your opinion. Most folks top post because it's convenient for
them. However, it's really in convenient to the reader.

> 6) The A: Q: A: Q: to educate people is counter-productive.

You do mean Q: A: Q: A: right? Why is it counter productive.

> 7) Email clients decide the style of posting.

Agreed.

> 8) Please do not think top posting are evil.

Evil implies malicious intent. Top posting has no intent.
It's just counter to how people read.

BAJ

2005\11\25@235507 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Xiaofan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Fri, Nov 25 at 18:00:
> Serverwise, Redhat/Suse/Ubuntu(not yet) offer good alternatives. I am talking
> about Desktop. It is cheaper to buy a Windows desktop. If one decides not
> to use office, Open Office is available on Windows as well as Linux.
> Lot of free/open software are available for Windows as well.

Since Linux on the desktop costs $0, they cost the same - just buy a
Windows machine and install any of the free Linux variants.  Want
Redhat?  The Fedora project is the free destop-oriented variant.  Want
SuSE?  OpenSuse is the free version.  Want desktop support?  Well,
that's probably cheaper if you need to call a business, but I'd argue
that the Linux community (particularly Ubuntu and Gentoo) is more
helpful than any phone rep whose suggestions are "reboot, and if that
doesn't work, reinstall from the factory recovery CD because we don't
support your non-standard WinZip install". :)

I beg to differ with Ubuntu not being ready as a server, though.
Ubuntu's target audience is the desktop environment, but it's Debian
underneath.  Debian has for a long time been an extremely good server
Linux, largely due to their strenuous stability testing and long
release cycles.  Ubuntu builds on that and provides an extended
support period for all official releases (something like three
versions back will always be supported) with a slightly accelerated
but still conservative release schedule.  Servers aren't Ubuntu's
advertised primary market, but Ubuntu makes a very nice server
platform.  Their "server" install is one of the leanest base systems
you'll find, and has all the benefits of the apt packaging system with
a real commercial company backing them up.  Most of the servers in my
home now run Ubuntu, I believe in it that much.  I'm hoping to build
up an Ubuntu test cluster at work as well, so we can get some of the
developers playing with that system.  That may well happen before
year's end.

> Do you frequent GNUPIC list? I am active there as well. I like Linux but I
> like them to be used together. Linux/Windows is better than only Linux or
> only Windows. I am using a WinXp/Ubuntu dual-boot machine.

I've got VMWare running on my desktop right now, running a couple of
Linux distros and a Win2K install because some things just work better
with Windows.  It's easier to do that than to work around. :)  I need
to spend more time with the GnuPIC list, though, as I do almost
nothing there now...

> People should be encouraged to try out Linux. However it is just not ready
> yet for the corporate setup.

I agree only in that Linux is not ready to 100% replace Windows.  It
never will be, largely because Windows is so ubiquitous.  However,
lots of places are using Linux on the desktop already.  Any reader of
Linux Journal, among others, can find some business sucess story
nearly every month.  I've set up totally non-technical users who have
not been brainwashed by Windows (these are usually elderly people who
don't think they can use computers at all), and they pick up Gnome or
KDE as quickly or more quickly compared to my observations with
Windows.

As I keep saying, though, Windows definitely has a place.  One of
those places is where it does an adequate job and users are
comfortable with it already.  In those locations, it often makes no
sense to remove Windows just for the sake of change.  Use the right
tool for the job, though. :)

--Danny

2005\11\26@000036 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Byron A Jeff <EraseMEbyronspam@spam@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > > > So as long as enough context is provided so that the reply
> > > > is coherent, then reasonable people will have no problem with
> > > > top-posting.
> > >
>
> > > Scott Dattalo wrote:
> > > It's not just about providing context, but also the ease of access to that
> > > context.  Reading a top posted reply can be annoying because you have to
> > > scoll around a lot to figure out the context.
> > >

A classic example with mis-quotation. Scott Dattalo did not write
that. He wrote the first three lines. Olin wrote this.

This is exactly what I do not like the ">" thingy.

>
> Humans read in context. Postings should be written in context.
>
> Trimming is orthogonal to the issue.
>
> BAJ

Anyway, this thread is dead. James has a clear guideline below.

On 11/26/05, James Newton, Host <@spam@jamesnewtonspam_OUTspam.....piclist.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I will try not to top-post even with the limitation of Outlook 2k
when I think it is better to use context-posting. When I am using
Gmail, I have no problems with context posting.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\26@041201 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:51, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Wayne Topa wrote:
> > I seem to recall that there is an RFC that makes it mandatory to have
> > one (1) blank line after the headers.
>
> Yes, that is how the header section is delimited from the content section
> as defined in RFC 821 (STD 10 if I remember correctly).

you're right.. it's the same method used by http to separate headers and
content, but it shouldn't get shown by the client..

cheers..

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

2005\11\26@041306 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:36, Wayne Topa wrote:
> Signatures > 4 lines are rude.

yeah, especially those "legal notices/disclaimers" that some companies have..
often, they take up more space than the actual message..

cheers..

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

2005\11\26@053134 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Topposting and there will be no such problems.
>
> We all agree triming is a good thing. Once trimmed to very
> short, scroll
> is not a problem for bottom-posting and I think both are accepted.
> However in that case, I still think top-posting is slightly better.

I much prefer a trimmed post to a bloated one. I think we all agree to
that. When I see a new post and the first screen does not show any new
text I skip to the next. So that puts topposters at an (unfair)
advantage. Or disadvantage, if they don't want to be read by me.

Once I am reading a post I prefer to have the original text and the
response near to each other. On a response-by-response base, which in
most cases leads to interleaved original/response. Of course the
original text and the response must be easily disntinguishable.

When both previous preferences are fullfilled I prefer
original-text-first, repsonse below that, because that is the order in
which I read. But this is the least important of my three wishes.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\11\26@061843 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SEND > Mail Sending Format > Plain Text Settings >
>   Encode text using: None

Some people may want to use "Quoted-Printable" here. This encoding enables
you to send characters like µ (greek mu), ° (degree) and accented letters
in a 7bit ASCII encoding (which is pretty much guaranteed to pass through
every mail server). If you don't use them, it pretty much looks like normal
ASCII. (This is the encoding that inserts those '=' characters often
followed by a hex code.)


> I would hold down SHIFT and hit down arrow a few
> times to delete stuff from the top to the first text I want to repond to.
> Let go of shift and hit ALT-E, T.  This deletes the highlighted text.  
This "Alt-E, T" is also known as Ctrl-X or Shift-Del. Or also simply Del
(after which you won't have the deleted part in the clipboard).

Gerhard

2005\11\26@062932 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Why do yo think Microsoft make this so difficult? They are stupid? No, I
> do not think so. Microsoft is very good at UI design and one of the best
> in human engineering: I like their mouse as well.

I also like their mouse, and I use Outlook a lot -- in fact, it's my main
email program (but I don't use it for mailing lists).

But if you want to get me going, I can write up a whole page of Outlook
"things that bother me since I started using it" about 8 years ago (which I
did because of the need to integrate with the organizational system of a
company I worked with a lot). There are many, and often quite small, things
that would improve Outlook significantly, most of which have been around
since I started using it despite the many versions they created since then.
There are many things that would obviously be useful in Outlook but that
are ridiculously difficult. Outlook at least is /not/ an example of a good
UI design.

So whether something is difficult or not in Outlook is not a good indicator
for whether it's worth it or not. IMO, of course, but I'm able to back that
up with a number of examples if you're interested.

Gerhard

2005\11\26@064141 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> <I am doing both top and bottom post to have a comparsion>
> I am using Danny's answer to reply you. In this case, do you think
> top posting is better?

In this case, I think there were two problems with the example: You didn't
trim to the relevant parts, and you seemingly didn't respond to any of the
prior posts, so all of it could/should have been trimmed.

Once you respond within a context, the situation is completely different.
It's /not/ about graphical layout here, it is about maintaining things in
context. For this, your comments obviously need to be in some context of
the message you are replying to.

In this case, it wasn't clear at all to me what you were replying to,
because you either didn't reply to any of what you quoted or you didn't
make it clear (no "in context" reply).

IMO.

Gerhard

2005\11\26@070935 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Byron A Jeff wrote:

> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> 4)  I think that top-posting should be more prefrered for
>> short thread.
>
> Top posting puts the cart before the horse. It breaks
> causality in reading. It should never be preferred.

As some people have already mentioned here, there are some points for top
posting in a normal email situation (one-to-one). One is that both parties
are aware of the context, another is that instead of ripping the flow of
thought apart in many small pieces, you try to get your act together and
respond with a decently written "piece". That has some advantages, on both
ends, in some cases. It is more like writing a letter, which sometimes is
appropriate, especially when communicating with people who don't really
"think threaded".

But in a mailing list or newsgroup setting, most here seem to agree that
context posting in general is better, because the conversations are by
their very nature "threaded". The problem with thinking that for a short
thread top posting is "better" (in what respect?) is that when you reply,
you don't know whether that will be a short or a long thread. And switching
from top to context in the middle is a bit, hm, inconvenient. So why not
always context post?


>> 5) Lots of email clients by default tend to lead to top posting. Are
>> they all stupid? No. I think there are many instanced that top posting
>> is actually good.
>
> Your opinion. Most folks top post because it's convenient for them.
> However, it's really in convenient to the reader.

A good email client provides the tools the user needs. If an email client
makes it difficult to use a form of replying you want to use, it's not the
right tool for the job. It's not the design of an email reader that says
what's good or not, it's the arguments for or against (and the design of
email readers is not a good argument for that). So try to find out what
makes the most sense (and most seem to agree that context posting makes the
most sense in mailing lists and newsgroups), then find (and use) a tool
that helps you with that. At least that's what I commonly try to do, not
only with email.

>> 7) Email clients decide the style of posting.
>
> Agreed.

I'd say this a bit differently: the limitations of some email clients
decide the posting style. A good email client gives you the tools for any
style (within reasonable limits) you may want to use.

Gerhard

2005\11\26@071409 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>
>> Why do yo think Microsoft make this so difficult? They are stupid?
>> No, I do not think so. Microsoft is very good at UI design and
>> one of the best in human engineering...

Arguable, but putting aside that, the thing that most 'experienced
engineers' find really annoying about Microsoft is their failure to
pay any attention to the man-centuries of user experience and opinion
that precedes their implementation of ... pretty much anything.  Their
opinion appears to be exactly as you describe: "We're the best in human
engineering, so we don't have to pay attention to anything else.  
Clearly
the 15+ years of accumulated ARPANet and UseNet experience that happened
before we could even spell "TCP/IP", WRT quoting and message appearance
has no value at all when it comes to the WINDOWS client."

At best, it's annoying even if they happen to be right.  At worst, they
foist their erroneous opinions on millions of even less experienced
users who assume "microsoft did it this way; it must be right!"

Grr.
BillW

2005\11\26@072430 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Nov 26, 2005, at 3:40 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>> <I am doing both top and bottom post to have a comparsion>

> I think there were two problems with the example: You didn't trim
> to the relevant parts, and you seemingly didn't respond to any of
> the prior posts, so all of it could/should have been trimmed.

Exactly.  If you're simply going to include the entire message you're
responding to, it probably doesn't matter whether you put it at the
bottom or the top of your reply.   This perhaps has a place in business
correspondence (and perhaps that's why Microsoft does it.  The same
sort of culture that results in copies of your original letter in
any return correspondence in physical mail, where it's appropriate
to be "bottom posted" as a possible reference.)  But it is not so
appropriate for conversational quoting in an informal discussion of
the sort we have here...  If you're TALKING, or writing a personal
letter, you want to say something like "you said, 'PICS are better
than AVRs', but I think you're wrong."  NOT "in your letter of 14-jul
(see attached) you make erroneous remarks about AVRs.  You'll be
hearing from our lawyers."  :-)

BillW

2005\11\26@073039 by Herman Aa

picon face

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

Xiaofan Chen wrote:

Not sure about Outlook 2000, but Outlook 2003 can be configured to do
exactly that. (See me other message for where... maybe that helps for
Outlook 2000 also.)


However , the ">" thingy is annoying when it gets to
">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>".
I do not think my colleagues like to see the ">" within the
company as well.



In general, I think I would put on a kill file anybody who sent me such
a message. 40 levels of quoting is just plain ridiculous, whether top or
bottom or sideways. (Let alone on a cell phone screen, which was another
argument for top posting.)

Are you sure this is the level you want to discuss the issue? I mean if
you want a meaningful discussion, you need to come up with meaningful
examples.

Gerhard


(my reaction .....)

I think this is so simple matter ... why make it complicated ???

We read from TOP to BOTTOM,
We WRITE from TOP to BOTTOM (after ENTER everybody is one line down).

Soooo it makes sense to me to ADD
     TOP to BOTTOM
     (immediately below the post we are reflecting on)
It will be as simple as ABOVE
     (I  removed all quotation marks to demo it clearly).

EASY :
Just hit ENTER (extra blank line) to get
  EXTRA separation when you start typing.

Interleaved posting ........ automatically defaults to
  bottom posting in case of a single paragraph.

OR :   (for all us perfectionists ...)
 For separation we decide collectively to put a common character.
 like 3 times +++ or 3 times === or 3 times @@@ , whatever.
===
As I did in the line above this line. The three ===

This kind of separator displays the same over all flavors
 of mailers. and OS's.

As commented by others: Misquotings are hard to avoid if
 we mix TOP and BOTTOM.

Yes, we should trim non-relevant parts. It is good for all of us.
And it brings top-posters and bottom-posters closer together....

Herman in PHL.


2005\11\26@100627 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Gerhard Fiedler <spamBeGonelistsEraseMEspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> In this case, it wasn't clear at all to me what you were replying to,
> because you either didn't reply to any of what you quoted or you didn't
> make it clear (no "in context" reply).
>
>
> Gerhard

I think I am very clear. I use Danny's reply to indicate why Olin's
setting is not used by people who use spelling check.

Regards,
Xiaofan

From: Danny Sauer <piclistspamBeGonespamdannysauer.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2005 11:53 PM

Gerhard wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?'
on Fri, Nov 25 at 07:24:
> You can configure Outlook to prefix every line of a message you are
> replying to with e.g. ">". (Tools | Options | Preferences | E-mail Options
> ... | On replies and forwards.) This makes context posting quite possible,
> even with Outlook. We need to take into account that while nowadays most

It's worth noting for those who spell check that this breaks spell
checking (in Outlook).  The checker somehow is unable to figure out
what you typed v/s what you replied to, and checks even the quoted
text.  I find that exceedingly irritating, as many people I reply to
don't spell well. :)  It's also irritating because almost every other
mail program doesn't have a problem with that...

--Danny

2005\11\26@101229 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfw@spam@spamspamBeGonemac.com> wrote:
> Clearly
> the 15+ years of accumulated ARPANet and UseNet experience that happened
> before we could even spell "TCP/IP", WRT quoting and message appearance
> has no value at all when it comes to the WINDOWS client."
>
> At best, it's annoying even if they happen to be right.  At worst, they
> foist their erroneous opinions on millions of even less experienced
> users who assume "microsoft did it this way; it must be right!"
>
> Grr.
> BillW
>

The problem is that some people often assume "microsoft did it this
way; it must be wrong!"

And IMHO the  15+ years of accumulated ARPANet and UseNet should
not really apply now. IT is changing fast that lots of the things changed.
Luckily industrial electronics does not change that fast.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\26@103159 by Wayne Topa

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen(.....xiaofanc@spam@spamEraseMEgmail.com) is reported to have said:
> Let me summarize my points after reading all this thread.
>
> 1) We all agree that triming is important.
It does not seem the 'all' agree or have read this thread.

> 2) I agree that context-posting is better for longer thread
>  if trimming and quoting properly.
Then 'please' quote text you include in your replies.

> 3) I do not agree that bottom-posting is much better than
> top-posting for long thread.
We noticed that.

> 4)  I think that top-posting should be more prefrered for
> short thread.
Depends how you define short, doesn't it.

> 5) Lots of email clients by default tend to lead to top
> posting. Are they all stupid? No.
Only if they don't 'force' you to use their defaults.  ie
Microsoft Loves HTML mail.  It's not loved by most people using
mail-lists.

> I think there are many
> instanced that top posting is actually good.
Please describe those instances where top posting is good on a
technical mailing list.

> 6) The A: Q: A: Q: to educate people is counter-productive.
I agree that A: Q: (top posting) is bad but
Q: A: (context posting) is much easier for others reading
the post to follow the thread.

> 7) Email clients decide the style of posting.
Email clients DEFAULT to a style.  If that can't be changed to suit
the user, they should be replaced by one that allows the user to
communicate more effectively.

> 8) Please do not think top posting are evil.
Always evil, no.  On Technical mailing-lists top posting isn't evil
but, counterproductive to getting the message across to 'all' of the
readers.  IMHO

NOTE:  ________  Deleted text I Thought you wrote, due to no quoting,
until read the sig.
>
> Martin

Wayne
--
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware.  Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't.  It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.
_______________________________________________________

2005\11\26@123056 by Wayne Topa

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen(.....xiaofancRemoveMEspamgmail.com) is reported to have said:
{Quote hidden}

I fail to understand why intellegent people would continue to use a mail
client that doesn't do what they want it to do.  Outlook ( the
crackers love it) seems to be the problem, so why use it?

I haven't used a Windows machine since 1993-4, but when I did I used
either Pegasus or Endora (sp?).  They didn't then, and don't now
AFAIK, have the problems that Outlook does.  

Bewildered
--
Just about every computer on the market today runs Unix, except the Mac
(and nobody cares about it).
               -- Bill Joy 6/21/85
_______________________________________________________

2005\11\26@133913 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Wayne wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Sat, Nov 26 at 11:35:
> > It's worth noting for those who spell check that this breaks spell
> > checking (in Outlook).  The checker somehow is unable to figure out
[...]
> > --Danny
> I fail to understand why intellegent people would continue to use a mail
> client that doesn't do what they want it to do.  Outlook ( the
> crackers love it) seems to be the problem, so why use it?

In my case, I use Outlook at work because I need access to work email
and the mail admin doesn't want to enable any extra services like IMAP
on the Exchange server.  Granted, I did write an SMTP wrapper using
OLE calls to Outlook in order to send mail from my machine, and could
probably do something similar to fetch mail to a local folder without
actually using the Outlook GUI, but that's a fair amount of work that
I just don't want to do...  It's possible to use Evolution on Linux,
but I'm pretty sure that requires the install of Ximian Connector on
the server side or enabling IMAP on the server - a colleague couldn't
get Evolution to work with the current setup, and we can't get the
admin team to change things since Outlook "works".

Basically, it's Outlook or nothing where I'm at now.  There's no web
access either, as far as I can tell.  The contract's up soon for me
and isn't renewable, but the people who are full-time don't have that
to look forward to. :)

--Danny

2005\11\26@182918 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> I think I am very clear. I use Danny's reply to indicate why Olin's
> setting is not used by people who use spelling check.

First off, I did /not/ understand that. Maybe I was dense when reading your
message, or maybe you didn't make it clear (maybe by not context quoting?
maybe by not trimming the quoted text to the relevant part?).

> ... is not used by people who use spelling check.

Be that as it may have been, I'd say here (and that's how I read it) "...
is not used by people who use the spell check of an email reader that is
not capable of skipping quoted text when checking the spelling."

FYI, there /are/ email readers out there that can skip quoted text. It's
all about the right tool for the job (I think I wrote that before :) -- and
using the wrong tool has always been a very bad excuse for not doing the
job right (at least in an engineering context).

Gerhard

2005\11\26@185620 by olin piclist

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> ... is not used by people who use spelling check.
>
> Be that as it may have been, I'd say here (and that's how I read it)
> "... is not used by people who use the spell check of an email reader
> that is not capable of skipping quoted text when checking the
> spelling."
>
> FYI, there /are/ email readers out there that can skip quoted text.
> It's all about the right tool for the job (I think I wrote that
> before :) -- and using the wrong tool has always been a very bad
> excuse for not doing the job right (at least in an engineering
> context).

Once again, this is just a simple setting:
TOOLS > OPTIONS > SPELLING > When spelling, always ignore >
 uncheck "The original text in a reply or forward"

This time I'm at a Windows 2000 machine running Outlook Express, but I think
it's the same on Windows XP.  The first thing you do when setting up any
moderately complex software is to go thru the options and see what's
available and select how you want things set.  Outlook Express has a great
many options, probably because people like to complain about how their email
client can't do this or that.  Going thru all the options takes a minute or
two once.  It's beyond me why this is a big deal.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\26@191854 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Nov 26, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> And IMHO the  15+ years of accumulated ARPANet and UseNet should
> not really apply now.

Gee, you should work for microsoft...

>  IT is changing fast that lots of the things changed.

What was that quote?  "There are two kinds of fools.  One says 'This is
old, and therefore good', and the other says 'This is new, and therefore
better.'"  I would object a lot less if I thought Microsoft had
carefully
considered the history and experience of others and decided to do
something different.  But I think they just completely ignored it...

(For the record, I think the most original thing microsoft has done in
a long while was the thing they got in the most trouble for; integrating
internet and browsing into their OS.  Being able to put a URL in all
(many?) of the places you used to be only able to put a filename is a
really good idea.  Too bad they did it in a way that managed to annoy
so many people...)

BillW

2005\11\26@192710 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>> 7) Email clients decide the style of posting.
> Email clients DEFAULT to a style.

The macos mail client pastes the selected text into the new message
creation buffer when you click the 'reply' button, and lets me edit
the message before, after, and in the middled of that pasted text.
That seems pretty ideal to me, and I don't see that it encourages
either top or bottom posting.  Further, the "paste SELECTED text"
feature encourages major trimming, which is a good thing.  (if you
don't select any text, the whole message is included in the reply.)

My other mail client opens an emacs window with the original message
in one window and the new message being composed in the other, which
also doesn't seem to be to be 'defaulting' to a particular style.
(although I believe it has an option to include the complete orignal
message in the reply by default...)

BillW

2005\11\26@201249 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/27/05, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistspamspamBeGoneembedinc.com> wrote:
> Once again, this is just a simple setting:
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SPELLING > When spelling, always ignore >
>  uncheck "The original text in a reply or forward"
>
> This time I'm at a Windows 2000 machine running Outlook Express, but I think
> it's the same on Windows XP.  The first thing you do when setting up any
> moderately complex software is to go thru the options and see what's
> available and select how you want things set.  Outlook Express has a great
> many options, probably because people like to complain about how their email
> client can't do this or that.  Going thru all the options takes a minute or
> two once.  It's beyond me why this is a big deal.
>

I do not use Outlook Express for any mail reading for quite some time.
I use it only for news reading (Gmane got PIClist and other list as
newsgroup feed). If you use the news feed, there is no problem with
context.

At work, I am using Outlook 2K with Exchange Server. I do not think it has
all the options you have for OE but I will check again later.

It may not be a good option for mailing list but it is what I get at
work. I will
try not to top-post and see if I can do it there without much trouble.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\26@202634 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Wayne Topa <spamBeGonelinuxoneKILLspamspam@spam@intergate.com> wrote:

> I fail to understand why intellegent people would continue to use a mail
> client that doesn't do what they want it to do.  Outlook ( the
> crackers love it) seems to be the problem, so why use it?
>
> I haven't used a Windows machine since 1993-4, but when I did I used
> either Pegasus or Endora (sp?).  They didn't then, and don't now
> AFAIK, have the problems that Outlook does.
>
> Bewildered

Outlook is the only option that I can use at work... Outlook coupled
with Exchange Server is the leading solution in the market...

You mentioned Pegasus, it was a pain to use. Eudora? I'd better
use Outlook.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\26@204542 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/26/05, Wayne Topa <linuxonespam_OUTspam@spam@intergate.com> wrote:

> > 6) The A: Q: A: Q: to educate people is counter-productive.
> I agree that A: Q: (top posting) is bad but
> Q: A: (context posting) is much easier for others reading
> the post to follow the thread.
>
> Wayne

I have not made my point clear. I mean the following or similar
to ask people not to top-post.

> A: Top Posters
> Q: Who are the most annoying people on mailing lists
> A: Top posting!
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet?

I feel sorry for Mike Young... I do not agree with the words he uses
but I feel I really do not like to see this and some other example
to show how bad it is to top-post.

Last time a person sent me this and I chose to ignore him...
I got the honor to be the first person on his ban-list. I think maybe I
should response to him more positively but at that time I really could
not.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\26@211048 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Olin wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Sat, Nov 26 at 18:04:
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> >> ... is not used by people who use spelling check.
> > FYI, there /are/ email readers out there that can skip quoted text.
[...]
> Once again, this is just a simple setting:
[...]
> This time I'm at a Windows 2000 machine running Outlook Express, but I think
> it's the same on Windows XP.  The first thing you do when setting up any
[...]

Outlook (it's either 2000 or XP that I'm using at work, I honestly
don't remember) can't skip that, for some reason.  When you check the
option to insert a '>' to demarcate quoted text in plain-text
messages, it pops up an alert box saying that it will no longer be
able to determine what to spell check if you do that.  I'm still
somewhat shocked at the sight of that warning.  I can't fathom why MS
could not find a way to track what someone typed, or just skip
checking the spelling of lines which start with that char, but I've
been unable to find an option so far - and that dialog implies that
there's a reason I can't find that setting. :)

Outlook Express is a better email client, IMHO, than Outlook - but
Outlook gets the nod due to the calendaring and colllab features.  I
guess that people using Outlook are expected to use Rich Text / HTML
email and only communicate within the company, because spell checking
works just fine on even interlinear replies in those modes.  Weird
that MS would remove the capability...

--Danny

2005\11\27@000742 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Outlook 2000 does that.  Not sure about later versions.

Tony

2005\11\27@064536 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> At work, I am using Outlook 2K with Exchange Server. I do not think it
> has all the options you have for OE but I will check again later.

I don't think it has those options; at least I've never seen them. It seems
Outlook was not designed as an email client, Outlook was designed as an
Exchange Server client. Even though it has been placed as an email client
since then, it never got the full range of features one expects (I expect)
from an email client. More flexible quoting configuration options and
commands are among them.


> It may not be a good option for mailing list but it is what I get at
> work. I will try not to top-post and see if I can do it there without
> much trouble.

I tried to use it and thought it was too much trouble :)  That's why I have
the mailing lists on a different email, and read that with a different
program. Can't you use OE with gmane at work? (Or one of the other free
news readers?)

Gerhard

2005\11\27@072814 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/27/05, Gerhard Fiedler <spamBeGonelists@spam@spamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> I tried to use it and thought it was too much trouble :)  That's why I have
> the mailing lists on a different email, and read that with a different
> program. Can't you use OE with gmane at work? (Or one of the other free
> news readers?)
>
> Gerhard
>

Good sugestions. OE with Gmane is not working at work since the news
server is not available. I will try to use Gmail from now on when I need to
post something. But I seldom check Gmail (this is a personal email account)
at work. Maybe that is actually a good thing. ;-)

I use OE/Gmane at home for mailing lists which I only monitor. The cable
modem ISP (Starhub) does not provide SMTP service and encourages
people to use web-based email.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\27@083348 by olin piclist

face picon face
On 11/27/05, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistEraseMEspamKILLspamembedinc.com> wrote:
> Once again, this is just a simple setting:
> TOOLS > OPTIONS > SPELLING > When spelling, always ignore >
>  uncheck "The original text in a reply or forward"

Oops.  That should have been *check*, not uncheck.  In any case it will be
obvious when you look at the little window with the choices.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\27@083901 by olin piclist

face picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:
> Outlook (it's either 2000 or XP that I'm using at work, I honestly
> don't remember) can't skip that, for some reason.  When you check the
> option to insert a '>' to demarcate quoted text in plain-text
> messages, it pops up an alert box saying that it will no longer be
> able to determine what to spell check if you do that.

I've never used Outlook, only Outlook Express.  I always assume Outlook just
had other features tacked onto OE.

Have you tried this anyway.  Maybe it's just warning that the quoted text
won't be spell checked.  Try misspelling a word in your new text and see if
it catches it.

Besides, that stuff is for wussies.  I dont' kneed no stinken spel checkre!


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\27@141951 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> I use OE/Gmane at home for mailing lists which I only monitor. The cable
> modem ISP (Starhub) does not provide SMTP service and encourages
> people to use web-based email.

It shouldn't be difficult to set up your own SMTP server on either Linux or
Win2k+. And if you read lists through OE/gmane, you can post to the lists
through OE/gmane.

Gerhard

2005\11\27@143052 by Wayne Topa

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen(spamBeGonexiaofancspam_OUTspamRemoveMEgmail.com) is reported to have said:
> On 11/26/05, Wayne Topa <.....linuxonespamRemoveMEintergate.com> wrote:
>
> > > 6) The A: Q: A: Q: to educate people is counter-productive.
> > I agree that A: Q: (top posting) is bad but
> > Q: A: (context posting) is much easier for others reading
> > the post to follow the thread.
> >
> > Wayne
>
> I have not made my point clear. I mean the following or similar
> to ask people not to top-post.
>
> > A: Top Posters
> > Q: Who are the most annoying people on mailing lists
> > A: Top posting!
> > Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet?
>
Yes, I did not understand.  My Bad.

I don't think I would go that far.  I find top posting distracting but
would start a Holy War about.  To each his own.  Live and let Live.

Have a nice day.

Wayne
--
Real Programmers don't write in PL/I.  PL/I is for programmers who
can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.
_______________________________________________________

2005\11\27@173703 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

> I've never used Outlook, only Outlook Express.  I always assume Outlook just
> had other features tacked onto OE.

Hehe, that's one of the Microsoft screw-ups with OE/Outlook. They are two
completely different applications and have nothing in common besides the
"Outlook" in their name.

Gerhard

2005\11\27@190109 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Nov 27, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> It shouldn't be difficult to set up your own SMTP server on
> either Linux or Win2k+.

Heh.  In a work environment where you MUST use outlook, it is probably
seriously against other policies to set up your own SMTP server.

We've been undergoing a migration to Exchange based email at work as
well, although IT has been flamed to toast for years prior that they
need to support clients other than outlook as well.  They're not doing
such a great job, though, and the hue and cry from the older, more
experienced curmudgeons has been long, loud, and probably as disruptive
to real work as several viruses.

BillW

2005\11\27@194449 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William ChopsWestfield wrote:

>> It shouldn't be difficult to set up your own SMTP server on
>> either Linux or Win2k+.
>
> Heh.  In a work environment where you MUST use outlook, it is probably
> seriously against other policies to set up your own SMTP server.

That was a tip for Xiaofan's home computer, where his cable company seems
to make normal email difficult.

> We've been undergoing a migration to Exchange based email at work as
> well, although IT has been flamed to toast for years prior that they
> need to support clients other than outlook as well.  They're not doing
> such a great job, though, and the hue and cry from the older, more
> experienced curmudgeons has been long, loud, and probably as disruptive
> to real work as several viruses.

I used to work under an Exchange server environment. If you use it only as
email server, it didn't seem to be much of a problem to open up IMAP/SMTP
access. But if you use it for more than that, I guess you have to use
Outlook as client.

Gerhard

2005\11\27@195657 by John Nall

picon face
Well, I guess the time has finally come to filter out [OT].  I kind of
hate to do  that, because from time time some interesting stuff has come
through there.  But it is like having a VERY annoying kid hollering and
screaming while one is trying to eat dinner in a good restaurant.  So
farewell, [OT].  You have served well.  (And why in the world does James
let all  this go on, after he has chastised others, including me, for
writing about "unknowable" stuff?  Yeah, I know --  If  the right-wing
loonies bitch, then he feels like he has to do something.  Personally, I
kind of resent that).



2005\11\27@204350 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
John wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Sun, Nov 27 at 19:04:
> Well, I guess the time has finally come to filter out [OT].  I kind of
> hate to do  that, because from time time some interesting stuff has come

Oh, no, not that!  Thanks for letting us all know, though.  I think I
speak for everyone who's only been on the list for a month or so when
I say that the feeling of closure this brings is quite welcome.  We'll
all certianly sleep better tonight, knowing that John isn't reading
[OT] anymore, and that the child-like antics will no longer bother
him. :)

--Danny

2005\11\27@220333 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 27, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>
>> We've been undergoing a migration to Exchange based email at work

> I used to work under an Exchange server environment. If you use it
> only as
> email server, it didn't seem to be much of a problem to open up
> IMAP/SMTP
> access. But if you use it for more than that, I guess you have to use
> Outlook as client.

Ah, but "integrated calendaring" is supposed to be the big carrot
associated with the "exchange stick."  Strangely, the engineering
community that doesn't like meetings in the first place doesn't think
that this is much of a carrot :-)  Alas, it's the upper management
that seemingly doesn't do anything BUT meetings that gets to make
the decision to deploy exchange...

In addition to turning on IMAP/etc on the exchange servers, they've
apparently deployed "Outlook Web Access" that allows MOST calendar
stuff to be done from most web browsers.  Alas, there are a few things
that only work when using Internet Explorer as the web browser, making
the whole setup just wildly "loved" by the assorted unix crowds (Mac,
linux, xBSD, solaris...)

BillW

2005\11\28@070256 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Chen Xiao Fan wrote:

> ;-) I know the answer: give up Outlook 2k for PIClist.

I knew we would agree in the end... great minds think alike :)

Gerhard

2005\11\28@071629 by olin piclist

face picon face
Changed tag *again* to OT.  I don't understand how this keeps getting set
back to EE.

Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> But which one you prefer? Messed-up lines or top-posting?

Messed up quoted lines, by a long shot.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\28@081559 by olin piclist

face picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:
> Oh, no, not that!  Thanks for letting us all know, though.  I think I
> speak for everyone who's only been on the list for a month or so when
> I say that the feeling of closure this brings is quite welcome.  We'll
> all certianly sleep better tonight, knowing that John isn't reading
> [OT] anymore, and that the child-like antics will no longer bother
> him. :)

This kind of annoying and pointless post is what made John leave OT and has
been degrading the PIClist lately, especially coming from someone who has
been on the list for only a short time and hasn't contributed much.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2005\11\28@081731 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 11/28/05, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote:
> Changed tag *again* to OT.  I don't understand how this keeps getting set
> back to EE.
>
Really sorry about that. I forgot to change the tag.

> Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> > But which one you prefer? Messed-up lines or top-posting?
>
> Messed up quoted lines, by a long shot.
>
That is interesting to know.

But I have the answer already --> Outlook 2k (at least the Exchange
server client setup) is not for PIClist.

<a bit of OT comment>
And this is the last post from my side. Some guy decides to filter
out OT because of this thread. That is a good thing for him perhaps.
I do not like OT as well in the beginning.

I still do not quite understand why real political topic (eg: the Soviet Union
thread) can be discussed yet this technical related thread becomes
a religious issue. Anyway it is up to the admin to decide.

I understand that political issues are tempting. But I do not want to
do that --> I see no point of discussing it in PIClist. Again it is up to
the admin to decide. I have no problem with any OT topic when I
am using Gmail --> just ignore those I feel not worth to read.
<end of OT comment>

Regards,
Xiaofan

2005\11\28@092110 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Olin wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Mon, Nov 28 at 07:30:
> Danny Sauer wrote:
> >Oh, no, not that!  Thanks for letting us all know, though.  I think I
>
> This kind of annoying and pointless post is what made John leave OT and has
> been degrading the PIClist lately, especially coming from someone who has
> been on the list for only a short time and hasn't contributed much.

So, it's OK to post "I don't like you guys, I'm leaving" but not ok to
poke fun at that (poking fun at the irony in John's post was the
point, BTW)?  I'll keep that in mind if you keep in mind that I've
provided answers to more questions than I've asked (granted, they've
been [OT], but I don't know enough about PICs and EE in general to
offer much in those areas) and that I sometimes forget which list I've
been on for a month or so v/s which ones I've been participating in
for a decade or more.

Call me silly, but it seems like someone who doesn't like off-topic
discussions and can't figure out how to ignore a single particularly
irritating thread should not have subscribed to an off-topic list in
the first place.  "Especially someone who, based on a quick search
through the archives, contributed little but asked much over his 2
years of subscription."

--Danny

2005\11\28@182812 by Herman Aa

picon face
John Nall wrote:

> Well, I guess the time has finally come to filter out [OT].  I kind of
> hate to do  that, because from time time some interesting stuff has
> come through there.  But it is like having a VERY annoying kid
> hollering and screaming while one is trying to eat dinner in a good
> restaurant.  So farewell, [OT].  You have served well.  (And why in
> the world does James let all  this go on, after he has chastised
> others, including me, for writing about "unknowable" stuff?  Yeah, I
> know --  If  the right-wing loonies bitch, then he feels like he has
> to do something.  Personally, I kind of resent that).

John,
I strongly sympathize.

But instead of leaving why dont you just ZAP ALL "Top-posting, is it
really that bad?" (Ignoring is another option.)
It is so easy to do (in all mailer-programs, maybe in one a bit easier
than in another). (The ignoring could be a lot harder to do .....)

I dont think James wants to stop ANY message. I think he just wants to
stop corrupting the good thing we have (the PIClist).
To do so he HAS TO stop controversial/disruptive messages.

Ways of posting (top or otherwise) is something we will have to sort-out
ourselves (PIClist-subscribers). We will have to make a CHOICE because
TOP and BOTTOM postings do not mix.
(I have deleted MANY postings because it was too hard to understand >>
garbage-can. Next ..... Time is more precious than mis-formatted messages)

I agree it takes way too long. But stepping on it is at least as bad. It
will burn itself out.

Ignore the bad, keep the good.

Herman in PHL.



More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...