[tlug] Re: top posting (was: RHCE preparation)

[Josh Glover <tlug@example.com>]

Quoth Shawn (Wed 2004-03-10 08:36:42AM +0900):

> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:36:00 -0500 (EST), Josh Glover <tlug@example.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Top-Posted Matt Gross:
> >
> >>You say you were the only one taking this in English?  Did you take the
> >>test here in Japan?
> >>
> 
> Really though isn't top posting primarily a no-no because:
> 
> a) It makes it difficult to glean context from what you typed at the
>    top of the message

This is one shortcoming of top-posting. I would say the thing that
*primarily* makes it a no-no on this and many other highly technical
lists is that it makes thread way too bloody hard to read. English is
written and read top-to-bottom. Email should be no exception.

> Since the poster restated the context (You say you were the only one 
> taking this in English? ) instead of relying on a direct quote from the 
> previous message, I fail to see how this has the negative effect of what 
> is considered classic top posting.

I wouldn't say there is anything "classic" about top-posting, but I'll
bite. ;)

In this case, yes, the context was clear, but the same result could have
been achieved by quoting Sajjad directly and adding his comment beneath
it. This would have also maintained the top-to-bottom readability of the
thread.

TLUG has a zero-tolerance (or three strikes, depending on how you look at
it) policy on top-posting and other netiquette violations. First offence:
you receive an on- or off-list reply (depending on the inflammability of
the situation) from a moderator, explaining your offence and warning you
that it is unacceptable on TLUG. Second offence, you receive a warning
saying that if you commit another atrocity, you will be kicked off of the
list. Third offence, you are unsubscribed and banned from the list.

This may seem draconian, but we long-time TLUG members have a vested
interest in keeping TLUG a place where UNIX geeks enjoy hanging out,
unlike much of the 'Net these days.

> About the need to trim, I agree that it should be done so people don't 
> scan through a bunch of crap looking to see if there is anything else of 
> importance coming later.

Yes, and it wastes bandwidth. Which is not an issue for many of us, thanks
to fat pipes connecting us to the Internet, but some of us may have to pay
per packet for our connectivity or want to view our mail on a really low-
bandwidth device, like a keitai or handheld.

-- 
Josh Glover

GPG keyID 0xDE8A3103 (C3E4 FA9E 1E07 BBDB 6D8B  07AB 2BF1 67A1 DE8A 3103)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DE8A3103

Attachment: pgp00052.pgp
Description: PGP signature