Subject:
|
Re: Netiquette
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:33:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
464 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin,
I can use the same arguments about chronology for top posting...but the MAIN
ADVANTAGE to top posting allows the email to be previewed and/or read without
having to open the entire email...or at least it does this for those of us that
use an email program that ALLOWS previewing of emails, such as Outlook, Outlook
Express, GoldMine, etc.
Also, take a look at where the comment is positioned as to who is
replying....right at the TOP!
Ray
--------------------
In lugnet.general, Kevin Johnston wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ray Silva wrote:
> > I just noticed something when I went to reply to a post here at Lugnet that
> > doesn't match up with the way I use email on a daily basis at work and
> > everywhere else. In other words, who decided that when replying, the "Proper
> > Netiquette" is that replys belong at the bottom of an email?
>
> It is a fairly widespread standard on discussion newsgroups (as compared to
> email).
>
>
> > ... My normal
> > procedure is that replies are ALWAYS PLACED at the TOP!
>
> This is fairly common for email, esp. in business contexts where retaining a
> complete copy of the original, for reference, is desirable.
>
> For newsgroups, which LUGNet emulates, so-called "top-posting" is considered bad
> form. The reason is fairly simple; following a conversation, esp. over the
> course of several days, is MUCH easier if appropriate context is provided for
> replies as you go. Consider this example:
>
>
> > > > > That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
> > > >
> > > > Joe, you're full of crap.
> > >
> > > I don't think he is; consider this reference: www.google.com
> >
> > Man, some people are so anal.
>
>
> The meaning, and the flow of the conversation, is easy to digest scanning from
> top to bottom.
>
> The meaning would be less easy to digest in the reverse order; it would be even
> worse if people switched from one format to the other:
>
>
> > Man, some people are so anal.
> >
> > > I don't think he is; consider this reference: www.google.com
> > >
> > > > > That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
> > > >
> > > > Joe, you're full of crap.
>
>
> What does "I don't think he is" refer to, above?
>
> That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
>
> Kevin
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) Ummmmm thats not who is replying, it's who they're replying to. Or is that to whom they are replying? Stupid English. ROSCO (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) Of course the news ettiquette is also to trim your quotes. If people took care to do this, the first point would more likely show up in previews. What I hate about the quoted article on the bottom is that people never trim them. They carry the (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) I don't think so; I find that claim a little silly, to be honest. Why do top-posters never *intersperse* their comments? Because it would pretty obviously be unpleasant to read, of course. And certainly not, either, for non-interspersed (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Netiquette
|
| (...) It is a fairly widespread standard on discussion newsgroups (as compared to email). (...) This is fairly common for email, esp. in business contexts where retaining a complete copy of the original, for reference, is desirable. For newsgroups, (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
