Re: Top-posting [ was Variable names]
Re: Top-posting [ was Variable names]
- Subject: Re: Top-posting [ was Variable names]
- From: André Renault <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:43:16 -0500
Top-posting is useful when you're talking about something general and abstract. Point-by-pointing is useful when taking something, erm, point by point.
The two tactics have different uses.
On 2011-01-13, at 5:27 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:
> Quite simply and obviously false.
>
> It is clear - and convenient - for everybody following the thread. It is a common practice and preference.
>
> It is a lot like toilet-paper rolling direction. You may have a strong preference about what seems obvious to you.
>
> But it is not a universal truth.
>
> Top posting does not prevent chopping trailing detritus. There is no conflict.
>
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Nigel Garvey wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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