[scribus] top-posting, bottom-posting, middle posting
Nicholas.Newman at Skynet.be
Mon Dec 6 00:03:58 CET 2010
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:59:16 -0500
> From: Gregory Pittman <gregp_ky at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [scribus] top-posting
> To: Scribus User Mailing List <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
> Message-ID: <4CFB0004.6000603 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> On 12/04/2010 08:20 PM, Nicholas Newman wrote:
>> On 05 Dec 2010, at 00:17, scribus-request at lists.scribus.net wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2010 02:21 PM, ehud.kaplan at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> What does top post mean? I use Thunderbird as a front end for gmail and
>>>> clicked on Reply-list.
>>>> On 12/4/2010 3:53 PM, Peter Linnell wrote:
>>> Top posting is when you put your reply above the original text, as you
>>> did above. It's considered bad manners by most people because it means
>>> that you read everything in reverse chronological order. I'm guessing
>>> that Outlook and other Winderz email programs work that way because
>>> dead-tree files are always done that way and office workers are used to
>>> reading things backwards.
>> Actually top-posting merely assumes that as a diligent follower of files and events one is already familiar with what has gone before, and does not need to re-familiarise oneself with everything that has been written before.
>> Thus one may as well just read the latest posting, at the top.
>> However when one is dealing with more than say 20 or 30 things at the same time and new installments come only after a few days, bottom-posting can seem like a good idea because one has the entire history in front of one in chronological order, rather like being able to read the entire history of laws in England, starting perhaps a bit late with Magna Carta, before ploughing through the rest and getting to the latest one.
>> However as both arguments can apply to both top and bottom posting, does it really matter? Can't we all adapt to both, whatever the habits of the writer? Personally I find no problem with either.
> For this list we have decided to recommend bottom-posting; it's not a
> rule, but a strong preference. For us I think it's a bit like the same
> reason a story starts at the top and ends at the bottom.
> Another thing I see is that many of those who top-post simply keep
> adding onto a post rather than trimming it down to the part they wish to
> comment about. Especially if you're familiar with a thread, you don't
> need the entire thread contained in each post.
> Finally, all too often it seems that at least some who top post haven't
> actually taken the time to read the whole post, and therefore may be
> adding things that are not novel or perhaps superseded by comments from
> someone more knowledgeable than they are.
> _Sometimes_ it may make sense to add comments inside a previous post,
> where specific items can be in close proximity to what they refer to,
> but when a lot of this inline posting is done, it's clearly harder to
> understand at times, and one also has trouble keeping track of who said
Good points Greg, and I for one am also perfectly happy to bottom-post; The trouble with middle-posting, as you say, is keeping track, but also actually noticing them during a quick "reminder-scan".
Nicholas.Newman at Skynet.be
More information about the scribus