On why bottom posting....

On why bottom posting....

[Linda Walsh]

Now I get why these people⃰⁽¹⁾ have so much of an issue
with top posting.  From this⃰⁽²⁾, I can see they are really
thinking of and expecting email to look like a chat-log or
irc-transcript.

They don't realize that some people use email to write
documents that include historical data for context.  But
like most good sources, will put the historical context information
at the end in an appendix.

Now if we can just get the bottom-posters to realize that by posting
the footnotes, historical data, and duplicate info at the top
of the document, they are more likely to lose the reader who is
only scanning the first half the page.


...(;^/) )...


---Endnotes---

⃰⁽¹⁾ - Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
       Larry
_____________________________________________________________________
⃰⁽²⁾:
    A: Yes.
    > Q: Are you sure?
    >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
    >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

Re: On why bottom posting....

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 05:47:48PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>Now I get why these people⃰⁽¹⁾ have so much of an issue
>with top posting.  From this⃰⁽²⁾, I can see they are really
>thinking of and expecting email to look like a chat-log or
>irc-transcript.
>
>They don't realize that some people use email to write
>documents that include historical data for context.  But
>like most good sources, will put the historical context information
>at the end in an appendix.

"Yes, Derrick, I WILL marry you!", Monica gushed.

>She threw the wine in his face, shouting "That was my SISTER, Derrick!
>My SISTER!"
>
>Derrick's face was stone.  The evening had very definitely not gone
>the way he planned.  How could she have misunderstood the situation so
>thoroughly?  He knew that he had to protect Sally but it was the
>hardest thing he'd ever done.  Gritting his teeth and dying inside he
>surreptitiously put the ring back into his pocket.
>>
>>"You have to taste this Haggis(1)", Monica said, offering him a
>>forkful.  Derrick knew at this point that this was the girl of his
>>dreams.
>>>
>>>Derrick bounded after his sprinting vizla(2).  "Chauncy! Get back here!
>>>Bad dog!" He was stopped short by raven black hair, stunning blue eyes,
>>>and full lips pursed in a beguiling grin.
>>>
>>>"I think our dogs need to get a room", she said.
>>>"Err, I um.  Heh", Derrick expounded, instantly smitten.

(1)a savoury pudding containing sheep's pluck
(2)a dog breed originating in Hungary

Re: On why bottom posting....

[Warren Young]

On 5/8/2014 18:47, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> They don't realize

Hasty generalization fallacy.  You don't know what they realize.

> like most good sources, will put the historical context information
> at the end in an appendix.

This is either the no true Scotsman fallacy, or denying the antecedent. 
  "My AP History teacher made us cite sources like this, therefore 
people who don't do it that way are wrong."

Most email is conversation, not essay or article writing.  The only 
reason we need quotes at all is that the pieces of the conversation are 
spaced apart in time and space, so we need context to keep the pieces 
strung together.

> Now if we can just get the bottom-posters to realize that by posting
> the footnotes, historical data, and duplicate info at the top
> of the document, they are more likely to lose the reader who is
> only scanning the first half the page.

That's why bottom-posting is supposed to go along with aggressive quote 
trimming, so that the quote includes only the pithiest possible 
reference to the prior contribution to the conversation.

I *have* noticed a lot of emails to the Cygwin lists with the entire 
prior conversation seemingly quoted, and one or two sentences appended. 
  If you want to rail against that, I'm right there with you.

Re: On why bottom posting....

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:13:36AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>I *have* noticed a lot of emails to the Cygwin lists with the entire
>prior conversation seemingly quoted, and one or two sentences appended.
>If you want to rail against that, I'm right there with you.

Ditto.

cgf

Re: On why bottom posting....

[Linda Walsh]

Warren Young wrote:
> On 5/8/2014 18:47, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>> They don't realize
> 
> Hasty generalization fallacy.  You don't know what they realize.
---
It was a cygwin-talk level generalization... ;-)


> 
>> like most good sources, will put the historical context information
>> at the end in an appendix.
> 
> This is either the no true Scotsman fallacy, or denying the antecedent. 
>  "My AP History teacher made us cite sources like this, therefore people 
> who don't do it that way are wrong."
---
Exactly!... I stand validated!



> Most email is conversation, not essay or article writing.  The only 
> reason we need quotes at all is that the pieces of the conversation are 
> spaced apart in time and space, so we need context to keep the pieces 
> strung together.
----
	I'm answering in conversational style -- Different writers
talking back and forth betwixt each other's writing -- and that's different
than ....

>> they are more likely to lose the reader who is
>> only scanning the first half the page.
> 
> bottom-posting is supposed to go with aggressive quote 
> trimming, so only the pithiest ... [parts are needed]
----
	Well I noted how you trimmed what I said there on purpose and
didn't include the full quote... or... 'what? no recap? how can I
catch up and jump in in the middle?  ;-)
	
> I *have* noticed a lot of emails to the Cygwin lists with the entire 
> prior conversation seemingly quoted, and one or two sentences appended. 
>  If you want to rail against that, I'm right there with you.
----

with 1 line at the bottom?  If they trimmed, I probably wouldn't mind
bottom-quoters... but I have the exact problem they complain about --
I have to scroll through pages of quoted text to find new stuff -- some times
only to find that they did inject a sentence or two in the middle just to
see if I was paying attention while scrolling...

Urk...

Re: On why bottom posting....

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:44:34PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>Warren Young wrote:
>> On 5/8/2014 18:47, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> They don't realize
>> 
>> Hasty generalization fallacy.  You don't know what they realize.
>---
>It was a cygwin-talk level generalization... ;-)

So you weren't really interested in making a valid point but just wanted
to jump up and down and say "Look at me!"

Re: On why bottom posting....

[Warren Young]

On 5/9/2014 13:44, Linda Walsh wrote:
> only to find that they did inject a sentence or two in the middle just to
> see if I was paying attention while scrolling...

Thunderbird puts colored bars to mark quotation levels.  If someone 
drops a single sentence in the middle of a pile-o-quotage, there is a 
break in the bar.  It's obvious.

Other mail readers colorize the quoted text instead, making the change 
in quote level even more obvious.

With an add-on, Thunderbird will do that as well:

	https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/quote-colors/