From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Top post vs. bottom post (was: Re: [CFT] libtool on nix->cygwin cross, with wine)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090225085624.GA27175@calimero.vinschen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A50024.4060202@alcatel-lucent.it>
On Feb 25 09:24, Danilo Turina wrote:
> Ben Kamen wrote:
>> Greg Freemyer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:35 PM, rhubbell <Rhubbell@ihubbell.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:15:33 -0500
>>>> Greg Chicares wrote:
>>>>> By the way, this list discourages full quoting:
>>>>> http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU
>>>> Ok, this is one neurotic list.
>>>[...]
> I just find it more natural than bottom posting, for the reason that if
> I'm following a thread post by post, I don't want to re-read every time
> all the things that have been said, instead I only care about the last
> thing said.
Which is exactly the reason why full quoting is not the way to go, either.
That's what bugs me all the time. Why are people not willing or capable
of removing all the stuff from a text which doesn't add anything to the
discussion anymore?
And that's worse with top posting. I'm often getting exactly this TOFU
style messages because they are used in the sales world. What you call
the "last thing said" is something along the lines of
Corinna,
can you help this guy?
And that's it. NO information at all. To find out what's going on I
have to scroll through lots of text until I finally find the original
request of "this guy". And that request it not necessarily the first or
last reply of "this guy" within that worm-style mail in which nobody
ever removed any non-important information. What is the advantage of
that mailing style, please? I don't see it. It just hurts.
> I top posted in one of the Cygwin lists, I have been said that it was
> wrong there, I explained my reasons and told that I didn't want to
> scroll till the end of the e-mail each time [...]
Again, that's the other bad style. Full quoting just hurts as well,
same as top posting. Sometimes it is not easy to filter out the
important part of a previous posting but that's no reason at least
to *try*.
Corinna
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-25 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <announce.49A35E97.5090808@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
[not found] ` <49A37F05.8050900@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
[not found] ` <20090224123655.dd559d60.Rhubbell@iHubbell.com>
[not found] ` <49A46366.5050605@sbcglobal.net>
[not found] ` <20090224133507.543ed1cf.Rhubbell@iHubbell.com>
[not found] ` <87f94c370902241433h7701dae1lc652feb0abae8eae@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <49A4786A.2060301@benjammin.net>
2009-02-25 8:24 ` Danilo Turina
2009-02-25 8:56 ` Corinna Vinschen [this message]
2009-02-25 13:14 ` Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090225085624.GA27175@calimero.vinschen.de \
--to=corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com \
--cc=cygwin-talk@cygwin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).