[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [OT] Top Posting Mandatory?! (was: RES: URGENT - errors onboot)



> Of the two messages from Brian and T. Ribrock, I found Brian's easier
> and
> faster to read and digest, because...
>
> 1. It was in HTML and had a pleasing font.  But I understand why this is
> a no-no.
> Some terminals are going to display it as half garbage.

One of these days, you will need to fix a broken system and all
you'll have available is mailx... (that is, if redhat in it's
not-so-infinite wisdom decides that mailx doesn't belong on it's
gui-based systems anymore) ...we'll see how much you like html
mail then.

> 2. I didn't have to scroll to the bottom to read it.  Since I was
> following the subject,
> I had read the previous messages and knew what it was about.  I could
> just read Brian's
> message, which was already positioned at the top where I could read it,
> and disregard the rest.

...speaking of disregarding, I went back int my trash folder to dig this
out to answer it. Why was it in the trash you ask? html, wrapped way too
long and top-posted. You are literally begging to not have your posts
read.

> Faster than finding the bottom, backing up to the beginning of the
> message, and starting there.
>
> 3. What is it that's bad about top posting? In the UK at least, it seems
> to be prevalent.

... but then so is driving on the wrong side of the road.... :))

> I recall the Claire Swire incident as a brilliant example of a long
> top-posted  thread.
>
> What is meant by fullquoting?

What you've seen here.

To see what a top-posting response to this diatribe would be, simply
delete all your stuff and try to follow the thread and the responses.
-- 
Keith Mastin
BeechTree Information Technology Services Inc.
Toronto, Canada
(416)696 6070






[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]