Top-posting [ was Variable names]
Top-posting [ was Variable names]
- Subject: Top-posting [ was Variable names]
- From: "Nigel Garvey" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:08:20 +0000
Bruce Robertson top-posted on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:24:46 -0800:
>And what exactly is wrong with having immediate clarity about the new
>message?
It's only immediately clear to the person who sent the message. :)
Everyone else has to scroll down to see to what point, by which of the
possibly many contributors to the thread so far, the new message refers.
In a discussion forum, it's much clearer and more convenient for readers
if the content of each message progresses in the normal reading order.
That way, readers can be reminded of what's gone before and can read the
new message in the context of what's been quoted. It also makes it
easier for the new message to be quoted by others in the historical
context. (With this post, I've had to insert what I'm writing now
between your top-posting and the historical context — which is mixed up
enough already!)
As Robert and Yvan have already pointed out, top-posting also tends to
foster the accumulation of unedited junk at the bottom of each message.
(Your reply, for instance, quoted the entire Admin signature from the
copy of my message you received.) Top-posters who receive individual
messages from the server may not care about this, but to those of us who
prefer to receive the digests, or who like to file discussions for their
own reference, it's a real pain in the goodness-mes — almost as bad as
when entire digests are quoted in replies.
Top-posting's not the only thing which litters the digests. (They're
also dotted with server messages that HTML or other attachments have
been scrubbed — which leaves some postings with no content at all!) I
only picked on top posting as a comment on Alex's overzealous views on
clarity in scripts and his apparent disregard for it in his quoting on
this list. (See below.) I've no wish to push the matter any further. I
know from past experience it's a waste of time. ;)
NG
>On Jan 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Nigel Garvey wrote:
>
>> Alex Zavatone wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:35:12 -0600:
>>
>>> Dogma over results any day!
>>>
>>> I just have my dogma because of my results, so there :p
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:11 PM, Emmanuel LEVY wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/1/11 10:56 AM, "Mark J. Reed" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it's important to focus on the goals rather than the rules.
>>>>> That means prioritizing and doing what's best in a given case, not
>>>>> blindly following dogmatic prescriptions.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll blindly follow Mark's prescription... Doh!
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel
>>
>> While we're being dogmatic about clarity, I wonder if this is a good
>> time to bring up the subject of top-posting on this list.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden