From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16762 invoked by alias); 9 May 2014 19:44:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 16752 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2014 19:44:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: Ishtar.tlinx.org Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org (HELO Ishtar.tlinx.org) (173.164.175.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 May 2014 19:44:43 +0000 Received: from [192.168.4.12] (Athenae [192.168.4.12]) by Ishtar.tlinx.org (8.14.7/8.14.4/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id s49JiaNu021605 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 12:44:39 -0700 Message-ID: <536D3022.6070101@tlinx.org> Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 19:44:00 -0000 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: On why bottom posting.... References: <536796E4.2090009@breisch.org> <20140505135928.GK30918@calimero.vinschen.de> <53679D5C.5030209@breisch.org> <20140505144745.GA6993@calimero.vinschen.de> <5367ACED.40409@breisch.org> <20140505154230.GB7694@calimero.vinschen.de> <5367B990.8050907@breisch.org> <20140505165723.GM30918@calimero.vinschen.de> <5367DEE5.5010407@breisch.org> <5367EA1F.3060800@cygwin.com> <5368094E.7040806@breisch.org> <53680C04.6050609@cygwin.com> <536C25B4.8050504@tlinx.org> <536CC670.2040406@etr-usa.com> In-Reply-To: <536CC670.2040406@etr-usa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-q2/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 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...