OT: Top/Bottom/Inline Posting [was: Folder Size Applescript]
OT: Top/Bottom/Inline Posting [was: Folder Size Applescript]
- Subject: OT: Top/Bottom/Inline Posting [was: Folder Size Applescript]
- From: kai <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 16:28:51 +0100
On 1 May 2006, at 04:11, chuck5566 wrote:
Where angels fear to tread...
[chuckle] I'm sure it does no harm to discuss the relative merits of
each method, Chuck...
There may be good reason for adopting a particular approach in
certain circumstances - as long as the alternatives have been
considered (in which case any compelling justification would probably
exclude words like "habit" and "default"). For anyone who hasn't yet
explored the pros and cons of the alternatives, the following article
might make interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
I have to tell that I do prefer top posting. I've already the
original post and now I have to wade through it again, every,
single, response.
If the participants in a discussion indulge in wholesale bottom-
posting, without editing the original, then that would certainly be a
valid point. I doubt that anyone has a particular need or desire to
read the entire contents of every previous message in a thread,
especially when messages usually contain a standard footer (e.g: "Do
not post admin requests to the list..."), may include lengthy
signatures (often catchy, but generally unnecessary to repeat) - and
might, through no fault of the poster, even append some rambling,
meaningless, organisational legalese (e.g: "This message and any
attachment are confidential and may be privileged...")
However, while top-posting almost invariably includes the entire
contents of a quoted message, I see very few equivalent examples of
bottom-posting. A more likely alternative to top-posting is what
Michelle referred to as "interlinear replying" (also known as "inline
reply", "interleaved reply" or "point-by-point rebuttal"). Whatever
you prefer to call it, this usually involves editing the quoted
message in a way that includes just enough text from the original to
provide a context (thus minimising any "wading" - at either end of a
message).
And I clip myself especially when there is multiple issues
involved, but clipping makes my brain hurt. It's SO hard for me to
sort out the latest response from the original message any other
responses, even with changes in fonts, color, etc..
The process of snipping/clipping/trimming can mean a little more work
- especially if previous posters have top-posted or bottom-posted
indiscriminately. However, since a bit of judicious editing could
mean the difference between a message being read or unceremoniously
skipped, the extra effort might be worthwhile. (And can you imagine
the length of a message, towards the end of a particularly engaging
discussion, in which *no* contributor had bothered to edit? ;-))
Just my 2ยข, FWIW. While my personal preference might be apparent from
this reply, I don't have vehement feelings about the subject (and,
indeed, welcome any message that can offer enlightenment on a
particular topic).
Nevertheless, to illustrate the point, I can't resist including the
part of the original that I would normally edit out as extraneous
(and which, while not that excessive, still doubles the size of this
already verbose response):
============= normally removed =============
Maybe I just need glasses. Maybe I've probably just been sullied
from Outlook/Exchange at work.
On Apr 29, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
On Apr 29, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Adam Bell wrote:
I am not sure, however, what top-posting is. If it's inferred in
your
statement below that I do it, perhaps you would explain it better.
"Top posting" is posting your reply at the top of a message, so it
appears before the material it replies to. This often makes it
harder for the reader to follow because she has to scroll down to
see the original context and then scroll back up to read the
reply. Most top posters exacerbate the problem by quoting the
entire message instead of trimming to the relevant parts.
The better method is interlinear replying, where each portion of
the reply follows the quote that it is in reply to, as I am doing
with this message.
If this is a closed "club" of long-time scripters in which a
pushy and
over-eager newbie like me is not welcome or is deemed to be just
adding to
the noise, fine - someone should say so and I'll read the list
silently.
Although there are long-time scripters on the list, it is not a
closed club of any sort, and all who are interested in scripting
are welcome.
In particular, Gary, what does: "And, in more anthropological/
sociological
terms, you might observe a direct relationship between communal
status/social rank and the expression of this
behavior in social interaction." mean?
I was wondering that myself.
BTW, I'm expressing my personal opinion here; I am not a moderator
nor have I any special status on the list.
-- Michelle
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public." --Teddy Roosevelt
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (Applescript-
email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40charter.net
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (Applescript-
email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40btinternet.com
This email sent to email@hidden
============= /normally removed =============
---
kai
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden