Top posting solution

[Joachim Dagerot]

(This message is also located at the bottom of the message, and also
in-line)


[top post]
Oh boy, am I tired of this discussion that in some kind of nature law
must pop up every three or four month.....





 | > Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as
a
 | > whole, rather than to the content.
 | 
 | What reference to a whole?  Whole what?
 | 
 | >
 | > This message came in while I was writing my previous message in
this
 | > thread.  It shows *exactly* the points I was referring to.
 | 
 | What are you referring to?
 | 
 | > Yes, the
 | > reply is posted at the bottom, but the quoted text is mutilated
beyond
 | > what anybody could have believed 20 years ago.  Your reply
appears to
 | > refer to the last paragraph only (I suppose; I can't read the
 | > message), but you've (mis)quoted it in its entirety.
 | >
 | 

[inline]
Oh boy, am I tired of this discussion that in some kind of nature law
must pop up every three or four month.....


 | Whereas I have no idea what you're referring to now.
 | 
 | > A question to you: do you like the appearance of this message?
 | 
 | It's a very pretty message.  But it is all blah blah blah blah if I

 | haven't a frame of reference for the content in question.
 | 
 | Whereas this way of replying reads like  conversation; moreover, 
 | Mail.app will highlight lines with indent marking and color so I
can 
 | easily process what was already written visually and if I want to
skip 
 | it, I can; if I'm reading a conversation, I can easily tell what
was 
 | written and at what point.
 | 
 | >  Or do
 | > you do it because it's too difficult to write a tidy reply?
 | 
 | Top posting?  Or inline posting?  I inline because it's more like a

 | conversation style.  It's PRECISE.  I know exactly what point is
being 
 | referred to, and I would think that ambiguity is something in the 
 | technology field that should be AVOIDED.
 | 
 | You should get a new one then.
 | 
 | New what?  What is being referred to if the "message as a whole" is

 | more than three paragraphs?  And am I right with my assumption of
what 
 | it's referring to?
 | 
 | Vs.:
 | 
 |  >My car is a piece of crap.  $^@@# thing broke down for the third
time 
 | today.
 | You should get a new one then.
 | 
 | AH!  Simple.  Referring to the car.  Not the dog that chewed the
shoes, 
 | or the DVD player that has buffer problems, or anything else in the

 | contrived example...
 | 
 | > I suspect
 | > the latter, and that's the point I'm trying to make.  I do
 | > occasionally have to use "Outlook", and I find it incredibly
painful
 | > to use.
 | 
 | No, I think the latter makes it sound more like the replier has 
 | schizophrenia and is talking to himself.  My personal theory was
that 
 | more literate people tend to inline post while the less literate
tended 
 | to top-post, but I'm not in a field where I could study that theory

 | conclusively. Longer top posters seem to ramble on and on, unless
the 
 | reader scrolls down to figure out what in hell they're referring
to.  
 | The only time I "top post" is when I'm truly sending something as 
 | content that shouldn't be forwarded again (a notice or memo, a
story 
 | that should NOT be edited to understand it...and people that keep 
 | forwarding jokes ad infinitum, PLEASE trim the damned quoted
HEADERS!!) 
 | as well as propagate a growing list of crud that ISN'T referred to.
 
 | It's not a matter of pretty replies, it's laziness.  Pure laziness.
 
 | When I want to reply to a point or question, I quote the reply or 
 | question portion and don't include the sigs or the random crap
already 
 | inserted.
 | 
 | Let's stop trying to justify top posting for every single email out

 | there and just admit it; people are lazy.  People who top post for 
 | *everything* are just lazy with trimming crap out.  they want to
spill 
 | out their response and that's it.  There are some things we're lazy

 | about that can be taken care of with features or protocol; for 
 | instance, word wrapping.  Someone is going to justify my asbestos 
 | underwear as I send this because I didn't word wrap at 72
characters. 
 | Why?!  Because I didn't keep hitting enter at "reasonable" spots. 
Most 
 | mail readers will do it automatically. My reader doesn't.  I'm
using 
 | Mail.app; it uses a different method for dynamically wrapping 
 | text...forgot what it was called already...but basically no matter
what 
 | the display is, it'll word wrap my mail so that it appears legible 
 | (within reason) and if I manually insert returns, it'll look like
CRAP 
 | as it interprets the linefeeds.  That can be taken care of by using
a 
 | reader with this feature (it's an open standard...) and inserting
the 
 | manual feeds reminds me of the idiots that typed up their five page

 | reports in word processors by hitting enter at the end of each line
and 
 | then inserting a word so there were stair-stepping throughout the 
 | entire friggin' document.  Deal with it.  That's something that can
be 
 | taken care of by updating readers so that when the right character
is 
 | hit, it inserts on your display a linefeed and quote character.
This 
 | means that in the age approaching, you may be able to actually read

 | your email from your system at home with the huge display, your
PDA, 
 | and your laptop, each with different resolutions and screen sizes
but 
 | at the same time be able to read your email without scrolling all
over 
 | timbuktu (that's actually why Apple used this format...the company
that 
 | started it, Qualcomm?...was coming up with a simple way for
messages to 
 | be read on anything from regular clients to cellphone screens
easily, 
 | as I recall from the FAQ on the subject).
 | 
 | But I'm afraid that where you choose to quote, inline, top, bottom,

 | CANNOT be interpreted by your mail reader or any protocol.  
 | Unfortunately, that still takes intervention by the user, the
person 
 | actually composing a reply.  It can *encourage* it by either
starting 
 | your insertion point at the top or bottom and by putting in the 
 | prefacing "On YY date so and so thus spake:" before each reply, but

 | that's it.
 | 
 | Outlook has this wonderful ability to mangle headers and encourage 
 | crappy habits to being with, and should be avoided like the plague
(as 
 | if the virus propagation features and bloated features included in
it 
 | that most people don't use aren't enough reason).
 | 
 | breathe...breathe...whew...
 | 
 | -Bart

[bottom]
Oh boy, am I tired of this discussion that in some kind of nature law
must pop up every three or four month.....