Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Michael D. Thomas" <mdthomas AT mindspring.com>]

The InterNetWorkers lists accept top posting, bottom posting, and discussions
of most any type. I personally find passionate netiquette discussions
particularly intriguing.

I believe in efficient bottom posting, but support those who wish to
contribute to our conversations in a different manner. Gina provides sound
reasons for top posting in some cases. Regardless, my first concern is that
people feel free and encouraged to contribute as they wish.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Champeon" <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/";
<internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] really really wrong things :)


>
> That's silly.
>
> OK, now go down and read what I think is silly. You may have to scroll
> quite a bit, if you haven't been paying attention, or if the original post
> was very long, or contained many points.
>
> Is it the bit where you say that "top posting is the right way to do it"?
>
> Or is it the bit where you claim you don't have to re-read the original
> post? Or perhaps a commentary on the fact that you don't have to unless
> you need to?
>
> Or maybe I'm talking about the idea of half a conversation being there for
> "optional reference", like the liner notes to a Bob Newhart album.
>
> Actually, what I'm referring to is the idea of quoted text, the part of
> the conversation to which you are directly responding, being in any way
> a cause of interference to the "point of the post". Though, to be frank,
> I think those who prefer top posting aren't really interested in having a
> conversation so much as getting their word in. Besides, it's easier not
> to have to deal with other people's conversation, right?
>
> But you'd never know it from this top-post. So, let's see how we'd handle
> this more intelligently, with little risk of confusion:
>
> on Wed, May 28, 2003 at 09:02:51AM -0400, Maria Winslow wrote:
> > By the way, not to pick a fight, but I think top posting is the right
> > way to do it.
>
> That's silly. The right way to do what? Inject an opinion without worry
> of having to deal with an actual conversation? Waste a post by making an
> oblique reference to something not clearly identified, and then weigh it
> down with possibly an entire thread's worth of posts, including all of the
> various .sigs and list footers, sometimes several copies' worth? Nah.
>
> > That way, you don't have to re-read the original post unless you need
> > to.
>
> That's even sillier. Why would you not want to read half of a
> conversation? Unless, of course, you're not interested in having a
> conversation. Or helping further comprehension. If you don't want to
> include the whole thing for fear of confusion, trim out only the bits to
> which you're replying. If you don't think it's necessary to interweave
> your points with the statements of others because everyone should be
> following along anyway, then why bother including the body of the post(s)
> to which you're replying? The reader can always refer back to the copies
> of those posts in the archive, right? Bah.
>
> > So the quoted text is there for optional reference, and shouldn't
> > interfere with quickly getting the point of the post.
>
> I don't see why you'd think that half of a conversation is "optional",
> unless you're a big fan of Bob Newhart's old comedy albums (cf.
> "Baseball") and think that reading entire conversations as
> half-monologues with little context is a rich form of communication.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
> Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b.
schneier
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers