Обсуждение: Hijack!
Someone scolding wrote:
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.
(don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every
mail contains references-header)
I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know?
Putting this information here would be a good thing: http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/
Keith (not scolding, but Hijack is an accusative term)
Keith Turner wrote: > Someone scolding wrote: > > Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP > difference'. I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their international nature of course. > (don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every > mail contains references-header) Yep - Thunderbird (for example) threads messages by this header. Your original question was hidden two layers down and I'd never have seen it if I hadn't been reading the one you replied to. That's the reason why people say not to do it - if you reply to an existing question many people will miss yours. > I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by > subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on > the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty of guidelines. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
Thank you for your response. What may be obvious to some isn't always to others. It's never a bad idea to remind users how you want your data formatted if there are roadblocks that are not obvious on the surface. Thanks again... K. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Huxton [mailto:dev@archonet.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:58 AM To: Keith Turner Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! Keith Turner wrote: > Someone scolding wrote: > > Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP > difference'. I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their international nature of course. > (don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every > mail contains references-header) Yep - Thunderbird (for example) threads messages by this header. Your original question was hidden two layers down and I'd never have seen it if I hadn't been reading the one you replied to. That's the reason why people say not to do it - if you reply to an existing question many people will miss yours. > I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by > subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on > the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty of guidelines. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
am Tue, dem 11.12.2007, um 14:57:57 +0000 mailte Richard Huxton folgendes: > Keith Turner wrote: > >Someone scolding wrote: I wrote this ;-) > > > >Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP > >difference'. > > I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as Yes, of course. It was not my intention to displease someone. > polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their > international nature of course. I'd like this PG lists. I know, my english is very ugly because it isn't my native language. But PG is a really great Open Source Project and it has a really large and userfriendly communitity. And, of course, i can learn more about english and PG and i wish to help others if i can. > It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone > who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email > works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty > of guidelines. Right. There are other hints, for instance all about top-posting style. If i search the archive and read answers and i see (i read normally from top to bottom) first the answer and later the question, so this is hard to understand. The rules for mailing lists etiquette are useful and i wish, more people would follow this rules. Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header) GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800 "Keith Turner" <kturner@cloudsystems.com> wrote: > > I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by > subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on > the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? Because it is standard practice on the internet to have lists-headers? And that is how every standard mail client deals with it? Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXrilATb/zqfZUUQRAn1CAJwM5s5qBv9SvnWN3G2vyKtLZkGchACcCkUu DlOPVMkYYBaoGgUUAuZFTGg= =Y4IR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 11/12/2007 14:57, Richard Huxton wrote: > It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone > who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email > works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty > of guidelines. It might be a good idea to append a mini-FAQ, covering these items, to the automatic email which is sent out to new list subscribers. For example, something along these lines: // >>>> Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // <<<<< Ray. --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000 "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > // >>>> > Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: > > * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. > > * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert > suitable technical explanation here]. > > Failure to observe the above may result in your question going > unanswered. // <<<<< O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXr5AATb/zqfZUUQRAolQAJ9MhHfioLWcA9iacC2U2yxpymk+twCcCU6k 6BjjQP25qcdqjfRzsVFFFqM= =DYpd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you > are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's > content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z." I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). A
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you >> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's >> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. >> > > There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter > writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single > set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. > Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire > original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a > long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. > > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to > be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted > text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z." > > I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a > little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). > > A > I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or something). I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me out of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit snooty lol. Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect that, but please don't insult people who see the world in a different direction than you :-) Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply > have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 > lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, > section x.y.z." That is what <snip> is for :) > > I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I > get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). > I can appreciate that but regardless of various "opinions" (mine included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better, everyone avoids top posting. Top posting makes it hard to read. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXsIXATb/zqfZUUQRAni5AJ4n4UHJVrMyPmv55gAsBzk8IlSB/ACgienh y+lxmDq+wIlAxJCD3J5v4eU= =YbQ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM
To: rod@iol.ie
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000
"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote:
> > // >>>>
> > Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:
> >
> > * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
> >
> > * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert
> > suitable technical explanation here].
> >
> > Failure to observe the above may result in your question going
> > unanswered. // <<<<<
>
>
> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
>
> However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common
> to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant
> customers.
* Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added "> " to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!)
* Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily.
* my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated ones collapse under top-posting.
* a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to your expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend manually formatting your mail to respond to it. Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface to Micro$soft really sucks.
* Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced.
* Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO).
And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me.
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:12 -0500 Thomas Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style > generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense > to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the > relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not > that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines > are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or something). > > I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me > out of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit snooty > lol. Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect that, but Well I did say it might be :) > please don't insult people who see the world in a different direction > than you :-) Don't put this one on me :). This is a community thing. AndrewS reply aside, if you review the "will" of the community on this you will see that top posting is frowned upon. I will be the first to step up and pick a fight when I think the community is being dumb (just read some of my threads ;)) but on this one, I have to agree. We should discourage top posting, vehemently if needed. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXsU2ATb/zqfZUUQRAtNOAJ442Wi3GRNBPll/sFuUxl+klooryACfcGnV 4j59rc8SxJZ8w3r4DhB9VAk= =5gEu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Dec 11, 2007 10:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you > > are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's > > content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. > > There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter > writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single > set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. This would be true if we were writing to each other with letters of friendly correspondence. We generally are not, but instead are discussing technical issues. By chopping up the original post into bite sized pieces and interleaving our answers, we give context to our responses. > Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire > original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a > long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. I do not believe anyone is arguing for including the entire previous post. In fact, most netiquette guides quite clearly state you should summarize the previous reponse instead of including it as one giant blob. > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to > be followed. The conventions exist for a reason, not unto themselves. It is far easier to have a technical conversation with interleaved quoting than with top or bottom posting. > But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted > text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z." It is not made any better by having "No: see the manual, section x.y.z" at the top of 36 quoted lines. > I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a > little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I agree. There are times it's just fine with me, like when someone is posting a "Thanks!" message. But when someone is asking a technical question, and someone has gone to the trouble to interleave their answers so that they have context, and then someone posts back, at the very top, "well what about if change a to b?" And you have no idea what he means without reading the whole thing, because there's no context.
"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes: > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to > be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted > text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z." That's because the real sin is in quoting irrelevant text. The only reason to quote text is to respond to it and then you would naturally respond after the quote since the other way around makes no sense. If anyone does make a FAQ make sure explain first *what* to quote. And only having said that then say *how* to quote it. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:12 -0500 > Thomas Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > >> I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style >> generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense >> to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the >> relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not >> that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines >> are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or something). >> >> I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me >> out of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit snooty >> lol. Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect that, but >> > Well I did say it might be :) > >> please don't insult people who see the world in a different direction >> than you :-) >> > > Don't put this one on me :). This is a community thing. AndrewS reply > aside, if you review the "will" of the community on this you will see > that top posting is frowned upon. > > I will be the first to step up and pick a fight when I think the > community is being dumb (just read some of my threads ;)) but on this > one, I have to agree. We should discourage top posting, vehemently if > needed. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > As I mentioned I agree, and I realize this is a community thing, and the community is awesome so I can respect their will. Perhaps we should spend more time working, and spend less time debating netiquette :-)
On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000 > "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > >> // >>>> >> Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: >> >> * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. >> >> * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert >> suitable technical explanation here]. >> >> Failure to observe the above may result in your question going >> unanswered. // <<<<< > > > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you > are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's > content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. > > However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common > to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant > customers. In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for future reference. Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad generalizations. That's an entirely different thing to observing that while on the broader internet you should follow local etiquette, and that here (as on most technical lists that have a fair number of posters with an, uh, old-school background) part of that is the points listed above. (And I'd probably add "and trim your response appropriately - removing stuff not needed for context, but leaving enough to have enough context"). Cheers, Steve
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
> On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
> be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
> text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."
Indeed, and that's why another one of the critical commandments is
"Thou shalt trim thy quotations".
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500 > Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > > > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply > > have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 > > lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, > > section x.y.z." > > That is what <snip> is for :) > > > > > I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I > > get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). > > > > I can appreciate that but regardless of various "opinions" (mine > included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe > except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better, > everyone avoids top posting. > > Top posting makes it hard to read. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments; I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes. I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by call-and-response/"bottom posting" advocates. So, your context is above.) As for the "snip" claim, it has several problems: 1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby draw the thread in a completely new direction. 2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers. 3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious slurs being heaped on them by others. 4. Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it. I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and pointlessly noisy. I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being too doctrinaire about it. A
Gregory Williamson wrote: > > * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own > (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. > > * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! > Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in > the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users > from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a > fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst > sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, > IMHO). But "do not top post" and "don't reply to start a new thread" aren't for the benefit of the people replying, it's for the benefit of the people asking the question. If I'm reading a message and all the information is to hand, I'm likely to have an insight / spot mistakes. It's the same as "Have a relevant subject-line". The easier you make it for people to help you, the more help you'll get. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
"Gregory Williamson" <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com> writes: > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and > privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those > provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by > reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:39 -0700 "Gregory Williamson" <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com> wrote: > > > > However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very > > common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just > > very ignorant customers. > > * Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually > added "> " to lines here since my mail reader does not do so > automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!) Get a client that works? :) > > * Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry > (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily. > Uhmm yuck. O.k. you have a point here but still , yuck. > * my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For I have yet to see a client where that is not configurable. > > * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail > server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because > _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to Which is 100% fair. I would prefer you keep your job and work on convincing your company to get a clue :P. However... it isn't _me_ that has a problem reading your email. It is the _majority_ (by far) of the community that has a problem reading your email. If it was just me, I would tell you to tell me to go jump a fish. > * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own > (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. Please see my remark about community :). This really isn't about me. It is about generally accepted community practice. > > * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! If I can't follow the content without effort, the form is utterly important. Or do you feel ebonics is valid as well? Just like code, the structure of content is of utmost importance to convey your meaning. If I have to bounce all over an email to figure out what you are having issues with, I will likely ignore that email. As will a great many of the most qualified people that are here to help you. > > And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>. Hijacking seems to be more of a > Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me. Oh certainly Hi-jacking is bad as well. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXssjATb/zqfZUUQRAorwAJ9xMC7hXSkeTO5WdGOWAXecxW86aACbBu4U hVUpysURoOsSIvQmUAp2l/8= =Zs9r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> writes:
> In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous
> content
> - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a
> smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for
> future reference.
> Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should
> never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad
> generalizations.
Sure, there are contexts where that makes sense. On the PostgreSQL
lists, however, you are writing for the archives as much as for the
immediate readers (and if you don't understand that, *that* is the first
thing you need to learn). The in-line, trimmed-quotations style is a
lot easier to read when looking through a thread in the archives.
Another advantage is that trimming quoted text reduces the number of
useless matches when searching the archives.
In short: this is the community consensus on how to post, there are
good reasons for it, and we need to try to educate newbies in it.
Not just say "it's okay to ignore the conventions".
regards, tom lane
In response to "Gregory Williamson" <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com>: > > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Joshua D. Drake > Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM > To: rod@iol.ie > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000 > "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > > > > // >>>> > > > Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: > > > > > > * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. > > > > > > * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert > > > suitable technical explanation here]. > > > > > > Failure to observe the above may result in your question going > > > unanswered. // <<<<< > > > > > > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you > > are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's > > content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. > > > > However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common > > to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant > > customers. > > * Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually > added "> " to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically > -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!) I recommend finding a better mail program. There are lots out there. Being forced to use substandard software in this day and age is a crime. > * Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) > users since they seem to see only tops easily. Illicit drug use is very common in many areas. Denigration of women simply because they are women is common in many parts of the world. Crying "everyone else is doing it" is not a valid argument in my book. > * my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For > rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most > recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but > not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your > mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a > message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated > ones collapse under top-posting. This is a tired, overused argument that has little value. > * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Are you saying your mail server forces you to top post? That's a new one. > Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a > problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to your > expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend > manually formatting your mail to respond to it. There's a limit to the amount of time I'm willing to spend trying to make heads/tails of an incomprehensible email. I think I deleted over 100 emails last week after seeing how badly formatted they were, even though I probably had the expertise to offer helpful information. I don't complain about people top-posting because I don't like it. I complain because it makes it more difficult for me to help, and thus less likely to do so, and I know that other, knowledgeable people feel the same way. I complain about top-posting because I know that the person is less likely to get helpful replies if they format their email poorly. > Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the > complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. > Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface > to Micro$soft really sucks. Again, you're asking a community to offer you free help in spite of the fact that your tools suck. I'm not saying nobody will do it, all I'm saying is that if you make it too difficult for people to help, they won't. > * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own > (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. I do see it from other perspectives. I can still see it from the perspective of a Bill Moran from 10 years ago who got chewed out for top-posting because I didn't know anything and didn't get very good help because I didn't formulate good questions. That's a Bill Moran who learned _because_ people pointed out what I was doing wrong. I'm trying to pass the favor on when I point out problems with folks emails. I'm not trying to be an asshole -- that happens naturally. > * Get a life Of course. How about: 1) I'll stop replying to emails that are formatted too badly to understand. 2) You accept that the rules of this community are "no top posting" and stop dragging this discussion out and accept that top-posted emails won't be responded to. Since nobody smart will offer advice on how to better format emails any more, the newbies will remain ignorant and never learn. That's obviously the best thing we can do for the community. Actually, I'd rather just continue to politely point out the rules of the list to newbies and help the world become a better place. But I'm an idealist ... and an asshole. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
On Tuesday 11. December 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I > get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> writes: >> In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous >> content >> - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a >> smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for >> future reference. > >> Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should >> never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over- >> broad >> generalizations. > > Sure, there are contexts where that makes sense. On the PostgreSQL > lists, however, you are writing for the archives as much as for the > immediate readers (and if you don't understand that, *that* is the > first > thing you need to learn). The in-line, trimmed-quotations style is a > lot easier to read when looking through a thread in the archives. > Another advantage is that trimming quoted text reduces the number of > useless matches when searching the archives. Which is pretty much what I said in the relevant context you removed. The risk of removing the wrong context is that it makes it look like we're disagreeing. :) > In short: this is the community consensus on how to post, there are > good reasons for it, and we need to try to educate newbies in it. > Not just say "it's okay to ignore the conventions". Cheers, Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:37:27 +0000 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > "Gregory Williamson" <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com> writes: > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > may contain confidential and privileged information and must be > > protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are > > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply > > e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ. O.k. but the above is *not* user controlled. I think the community needs to suck it up and live with that. Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXs0vATb/zqfZUUQRAt0jAKCn1nzb2sVPgYQmvJVCFYqSgoBR0gCfbr9Y UBA0ffWd3K/x+3zT0iDO6c8= =4OLK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <leif@solumslekt.org> wrote: > > It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the > sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract > intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to > skip top posting replies on mailing lists. You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. At that point I just move on to the next thread.
On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <leif@solumslekt.org> > wrote: >> >> It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking >> in the >> sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract >> intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to >> skip top posting replies on mailing lists. > > You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully > replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post > response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, > reply, and get another top post reponse. > > At that point I just move on to the next thread. The funniest is when that second top post response is "What's a top post?" Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <leif@solumslekt.org> wrote: > >> It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the >> sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract >> intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to >> skip top posting replies on mailing lists. >> > > You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully > replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post > response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, > reply, and get another top post reponse. > > At that point I just move on to the next thread. > I've already made it clear on this list that I would rather top post but I've been bottom posting because nothing in this world is more irritating than a pedantic computer nerd and well... this is a list about a database server... I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it.
Collin Kidder wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <leif@solumslekt.org> wrote: > I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted > above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is > just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the > energy spent crying about top posting were used to fuel cities none of > us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to be so blunt but it > really irritates me when people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. > It's not that bad, get over it. You obviously haven't been here very long. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Thomas Hart wrote: > I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the > style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more > sense to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then > the relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's > not that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the > lines are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or > something). You write "conversation" as if every message is written as a measured response to all of the previous messages, with an absolute order defined by when the messages arrive in my inbox, like we're all carefully taking turns. This is simply not true, especially when a thread has many participants, with many messages flying past each other - effectively, there are =many= interwoven conversations going on. Quoting the text to which you are responding is often the only way to provide the necessary specific context for your comments. As an illustration, which helps you understand the preceding paragraph better, the extract above, or the mess below? - John D. Burger MITRE On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:54, Thomas Hart wrote: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If >>> you >>> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's >>> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top >>> post. >>> >> >> There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like >> letter >> writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one >> single >> set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with >> quotes. Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to >> quote the entire >> original argument first, because the reader then has to plough >> through a >> long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. >> On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions >> simply have to >> be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines >> of quoted >> text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z." >> >> I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and >> I get a >> little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). >> >> A >> > I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the > style generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more > sense to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then > the relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's > not that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the > lines are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or > something). > > I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me > out of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit > snooty lol. Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect > that, but please don't insult people who see the world in a > different direction than you :-) > > Tom > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend >
John D. Burger wrote: > Thomas Hart wrote: > >> I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style >> generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense >> to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the >> relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not >> that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines >> are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or something). > > You write "conversation" as if every message is written as a measured > response to all of the previous messages, with an absolute order > defined by when the messages arrive in my inbox, like we're all > carefully taking turns. This is simply not true, especially when a > thread has many participants, with many messages flying past each > other - effectively, there are =many= interwoven conversations going > on. Quoting the text to which you are responding is often the only > way to provide the necessary specific context for your comments. > > As an illustration, which helps you understand the preceding paragraph > better, the extract above, or the mess below? > > - John D. Burger > MITRE You don't want my honest answer, which is why you asked me a biased question. As I was stating, I agree with the convention and the communities wishes, and will attempt to follow them as a show of respect for the time spent helping me solve real problems, not this netiquette nonsense. You'll notice every post where I defend top posting is still bottom posted. However in the example above, I skipped everything above your response and read what you had to say. I knew exactly what you were talking about, and as a refresher on the conversation, I read the "mess" below. However I'm not holding out on convincing everybody on the list that top posting is better, just like I'm not trying to get everyone on the list to agree on a pizza topping. The community has stated over and over again that they prefer bottom posting, or pepperoni if you will. If I'm getting free pizza from somebody who's not getting paid for it, I'll take pepperoni, even if I prefer pineapple, because that's respectful. You raise some good points, and I agree with them. However if you want to have an intelligent conversation, try not to load it with questions like "Do you prefer the good x above, or the bad x below?". There's a simple unbiased way to ask me my opinion, but you weren't interested in that, which is why I know you're not interested in my opinion, which is why I should have top posted this entire response, but as I said, that's disrespectful to the people who have helped me. Once again, way too much time has been spent on this topic. It's very simple (and this is coming from a top poster). * The community wants you to bottom-post or interleave, no top posting. Don't do it. * The only reason you're here is to ask for help from people that are smarter and more talented than you. Don't disrespect them. * The only reason they're here is because they're awesome. Don't doubt it. If you skipped this whole post, and only read the points above and this line, you're my hero. Why don't we get away from this whole conversation? It's not productive, and it's not going to change anything, and the archives have .001% more random useless bs. We should all donate to pgsql for having to store this utter crap on their servers. To anybody who hasn't gotten a response on a legitimate issue, I apologize for being petty and opinionated and wasting your time.
"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes: > I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied > at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you > wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. We're not goldfish, we can remember the topic of discussion for at least a few hours. But what you're touching on here is that the real reason newcomers to the internet favour top-posting: their mail user agents suck. If you have a threaded mail reader you can always go and reread the original messages for context. Copying the entire message thread backwards on the end of every message is just a terrible way to emulate a threaded mail reader for people who have bad tools. Seriously, do you have any trouble following the discussion even though I only clipped two sentences of your message? If you did would you have any trouble finding the original message to reread it? Top-posting makes perfect sense if you start from the broken place of assuming you need to copy the entire thread into every message. It's a bit like saying "but officer I had to speed to keep up with the guy I was tailgating!" -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:44:31PM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote: > Seriously, do you have any trouble following the discussion even though I > only clipped two sentences of your message? If you did would you have any > trouble finding the original message to reread it? No, but (1) I have been doing this for years and (2) words are my friend. Not everyone is like me. Some people find archive-trolling very difficult. > Top-posting makes perfect sense if you start from the broken place of > assuming you need to copy the entire thread into every message. Or if that's the habit you have. The thing that is "easiest" is the thing you're used to. If you learned this email thingy in an environment where top posting was what everyone did, then that's familiar and easy, and you'll tend to stick with it. Anyone who is trying to argue that there's some view from nowhere at which we'd be able to decide whether top, bottom, or interleaved posting is "better" is imagining things. There is no trancendently right way. Which is why I have (third time's a charm? Anyway, this is my last post on the topic) been suggesting we need say nothing more about it than that interleaving answers with previous posts is the convention of the community; and if you want the best responses, you'd best follow that convention. Then we can avoid any more discussions of what's "better". (I support the suggestion, too, that we put as much in the friendly greeting everyone who subscribes gets and promptly deletes without reading.) We run this list in English, note. Is that because it's better than Latin? No: it's because more of the participants like it that way. I bet if we had a lot of Latin speakers, we'd have made a different decision. And yes, there's a certain amount of circularity in such convention-picking (because by choosing English, we surely discriminate against the unilingual Latin speakers). A
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
> think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
> read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
> I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
> situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
>
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
> I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
> at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
> wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
> context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
> call-and-response/"bottom posting" advocates. So, your context is above.)
>
> As for the "snip" claim, it has several problems:
>
> 1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
> from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
> draw the thread in a completely new direction.
>
> 2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
>
> 3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
> immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
> slurs being heaped on them by others.
>
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
<snip>
> I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
> that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
> cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
> don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
> superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
> too doctrinaire about it.
>
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
> >
> > Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> > > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
> > > have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
> > > lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual,
> > > section x.y.z."
> >
> > That is what <snip> is for :)
> >
> > > I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
> > > get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
> >
> > I can appreciate that but regardless of various "opinions" (mine
> > included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
> > except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
> > everyone avoids top posting.
> >
> > Top posting makes it hard to read.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
>
> Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
> think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
> read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
> I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
> situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
>
> I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
> at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
> wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
> context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
> call-and-response/"bottom posting" advocates. So, your context is above.)
>
> As for the "snip" claim, it has several problems:
>
> 1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
> from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
> draw the thread in a completely new direction.
>
> 2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
>
> 3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
> immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
> slurs being heaped on them by others.
>
> 4. Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
> no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with
> a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
>
> I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
> point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
> should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
> easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
> you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
> pointlessly noisy.
>
> I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
> that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
> cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
> don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
> superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
> too doctrinaire about it.
>
> A
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Thomas Hart wrote: >> As an illustration, which helps you understand the preceding >> paragraph better, the extract above, or the mess below? > You raise some good points, and I agree with them. However if you > want to have an intelligent conversation, try not to load it with > questions like "Do you prefer the good x above, or the bad x below?". It's a fair cop (but society's to blame :). Sorry, I thought better of it right after I hit Send. - John D. Burger MITRE
Steve Atkins wrote: > In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content > - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a > smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for > future reference. And it is quite common for tractor trailers to take wide right turns at intersections, but it's quite foolish for a car to do the same. There are approaches that are accepted depending on the vehicle and environment in use. > Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should > never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad > generalizations. Actually, it appears to me that those folks generally are clued into the acceptable approach in the environment they are posting. Also, they probably spend more time posting to technical lists and not in clueless corporate speak html email conversations. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Collin Kidder wrote: > I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted > above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is > just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. If all the > energy spent crying about top posting were used to fuel cities none of > us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to be so blunt but it > really irritates me when people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. > It's not that bad, get over it. If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Geoffrey wrote: > Collin Kidder wrote: > >> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you >> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. >> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor >> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to >> fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to >> be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year >> olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it. > > If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will simply > grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get use to > it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? > There is no reason for this discussion to become rude. It has been productive on both sides thus far. Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Geoffrey wrote: >> Collin Kidder wrote: >> >>> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you >>> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. >>> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor >>> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to >>> fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to >>> be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year >>> olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it. >> >> If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will >> simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get >> use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? >> > > There is no reason for this discussion to become rude. It has been > productive on both sides thus far. Let's keep it that way. I felt I was 'responding in kind' wrt 'it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it.' posting. My apologies if I've taken it to a level of rude that it had not already reached. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Geoffrey wrote: > Collin Kidder wrote: > >> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you >> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. >> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor >> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to >> fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to >> be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year >> olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it. > > If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will > simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get > use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? > Yes, I'm bitching, crying, or whatever you'd like to call it. But you notice, I'm still attempting to follow the proper posting etiquette for this list. However, I do not see any actual valid reason that top posting cannot ever be acceptable except that some people are way too stuck in a mental rut and refuse to allow for anything other than their way. You will also notice that I am far from the only one who follows the rules while simultaneously questioning whether there is any point in condemning top posting. I believe that my conforming to the "rule" shows that I am willing to cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list. That they cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you that the real problem we've been talking about is with them.
On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes: > >> I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just >> replied >> at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including >> everything, you >> wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. > > We're not goldfish, we can remember the topic of discussion for at > least a few > hours. /me stares at his reflection in the glass... What? :) Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
Collin Kidder wrote: > Geoffrey wrote: >> Collin Kidder wrote: >> >>> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you >>> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. >>> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor >>> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used >>> to fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry >>> to be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 >>> year olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it. >> >> If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will >> simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. >> Get use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? >> > Yes, I'm bitching, crying, or whatever you'd like to call it. But you > notice, I'm still attempting to follow the proper posting etiquette > for this list. However, I do not see any actual valid reason that top > posting cannot ever be acceptable except that some people are way too > stuck in a mental rut and refuse to allow for anything other than > their way. You will also notice that I am far from the only one who > follows the rules while simultaneously questioning whether there is > any point in condemning top posting. > > I believe that my conforming to the "rule" shows that I am willing to > cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list. That they > cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you that > the real problem we've been talking about is with them. I agree with Joshua on this point. It's entirely possible to discuss this without resorting to immaturity. If you make a decent point, then diminish it by cursing or insulting everybody here, you've lost the point and it's effectiveness entirely. -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
> > I felt I was 'responding in kind' wrt 'it really irritates me when > people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get > over it.' posting. My apologies if I've taken it to a level of rude > that it had not already reached. > I suppose that the post was probably directed at me as much as it was at you. For my part in the rudeness I also apologize (and for the reply that I sent you which hasn't shown up on the list yet but will.)
In response to Collin Kidder <adderd@kkmfg.com>: > Geoffrey wrote: > > Collin Kidder wrote: > > > >> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you > >> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. > >> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor > >> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to > >> fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to > >> be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year > >> olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it. > > > > If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will > > simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get > > use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? > > > Yes, I'm bitching, crying, or whatever you'd like to call it. But you > notice, I'm still attempting to follow the proper posting etiquette for > this list. However, I do not see any actual valid reason that top > posting cannot ever be acceptable except that some people are way too > stuck in a mental rut and refuse to allow for anything other than their > way. This is called "Trolling" Whether or not you are doing it on purpose is irrelevant. The effect is still the same, even if you do it accidentally. The point has been brought up again and again and again: "top posting makes it difficult for the veterans on this list to understand and respond to your email. As a result, in order to get the best possible response, DO NOT TOP POST." Somehow, you continue to bring this back around to how we hate top-posting and despise top-posters and whatever else it is you're saying. I'm not aware of _anyone_ ever being banned or anything horrible as a result of top-posting. The worst thing that happens is that busy people begin ignoring the thread, and this is what me (and others) who say "please don't top-post" are trying to avoid. If you want to turn it into some personal war or something, please don't do it on the list. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Collin Kidder wrote: > Geoffrey wrote: >> Collin Kidder wrote: >> >>> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you >>> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. >>> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with >>> minor issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting >>> were used to fuel cities none of us would be paying for power >>> right now. Sorry to be so blunt but it really irritates me when >>> people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. It's not that bad, >>> get over it. >> >> If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will >> simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. >> Get use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? >> > Yes, I'm bitching, crying, or whatever you'd like to call it. But > you notice, I'm still attempting to follow the proper posting > etiquette for this list. However, I do not see any actual valid > reason that top posting cannot ever be acceptable except that some > people are way too stuck in a mental rut and refuse to allow for > anything other than their way. You will also notice that I am far > from the only one who follows the rules while simultaneously > questioning whether there is any point in condemning top posting. > > I believe that my conforming to the "rule" shows that I am willing > to cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list. That > they cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you > that the real problem we've been talking about is with them. However, with your name calling and vernacular attributions, you obviously don't want to participate at the same level of professionalism as the rest of "them". Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
On Dec 11, 2007 1:01 PM, Collin Kidder <adderd@kkmfg.com> wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen <leif@solumslekt.org> wrote: > > > >> It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the > >> sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract > >> intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to > >> skip top posting replies on mailing lists. > >> > > > > You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully > > replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post > > response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, > > reply, and get another top post reponse. > > > > At that point I just move on to the next thread. > > > I've already made it clear on this list that I would rather top post but > I've been bottom posting because nothing in this world is more > irritating than a pedantic computer nerd and well... this is a list > about a database server... I'll thank you for not making any personal attacks, and keeping the list professional. If you have something to say, you can say it without insults. At no time have I insulted you, I'd expect and appreciate the same common courtesy. If you can't do that, then I'd ask you politely to not join in the conversation. I don't come on this list to be insulted. I come on to help postgresql users figure out their problems. I'm not pedantic. When discussing a complex problem, it can be very difficult to keep track of the thread of discussion when people top post replies back to me when I've carefully interleaved my response to them. I can't count the number of times that I could not tell what part of my message they were replying to. It's not pedantic. It's about keeping track of what we're discussing. > I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you quoted > above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. Anything else is > just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor issues. Again, please stop with the personal insults. I am not a baby. I am a 43 year old adult who is fairly mature. I don't come here to insult or be insulted. > Sorry to be so blunt but it > really irritates me when people cry like 4 year olds about top posting. > It's not that bad, get over it. Blunt is fine. Insulting is not, and it's not called for.
On Dec 11, 2007 2:58 PM, Collin Kidder <adderd@kkmfg.com> wrote: > Geoffrey wrote: > > Collin Kidder wrote: > > > >> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you > >> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post. > >> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor > >> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to > >> fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to > >> be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year > >> olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it. > > > > If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will > > simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get > > use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying?? > > > Yes, I'm bitching, crying, or whatever you'd like to call it. But you > notice, I'm still attempting to follow the proper posting etiquette for > this list. No you're not. You're making personally insulting statements when you could just as easily make your point without them. Following the format people want for quoting doesn't allow you to be insulting and rude. > However, I do not see any actual valid reason that top > posting cannot ever be acceptable except that some people are way too > stuck in a mental rut and refuse to allow for anything other than their > way. If you can stop insulting me long enough to go back and read the old messages in this thread, you'll see that I too said it was perfectly acceptable some times. Things like "Thanks, that solved it!" are fine top posted, although you really should crop the majority of the message you're replying to so as not to send a one liner on top of a 35k message. > I believe that my conforming to the "rule" shows that I am willing to > cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list. Now if you just stop insulting them. > That they > cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you that the > real problem we've been talking about is with them. Um. no.
> I agree with Joshua on this point. It's entirely possible to discuss > this without resorting to immaturity. If you make a decent point, then > diminish it by cursing or insulting everybody here, you've lost the > point and it's effectiveness entirely. > Yes, once again, I apologize. At times I seem to fail at running what I really think though the ol' appropriateness filter. This has been one of those times. I'm sorry for what has amounted to personal attacks and trolling. It wasn't really my intent but looking back now I can see that I've acted improperly. This is something I'll have to try to work on. Sorry all!
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've
> carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some
> top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix
> the format, reply, and get another top post reponse.
Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal
Scott).
It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search
of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look
all equally stubborn.
a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers
and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in
technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient
b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome
c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances
to get a reply
d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient
to educate newcomers
I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the
rule.
I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as
a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to
their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or
pollute the list with pro top posting arguments.
This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list.
We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally
better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP.
It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the
Internet get trapped in this kind of thread.
*Especially because we could use their time much better.*
Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time
in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read
interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB.
[1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__;
most frequently.
BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information*
Technology are strict relatives
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome.
I guess we have beaten this horse enough though.
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:04 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake; rod@iol.ie
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM
To: rod@iol.ie
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000
"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote:
> > // >>>>
> > Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:
> >
> > * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
> >
> > * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert
> > suitable technical explanation here].
> >
> > Failure to observe the above may result in your question going
> > unanswered. // <<<<<
>
>
> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
>
> However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common
> to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant
> customers.
* Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added "> " to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!)
* Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily.
* my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated ones collapse under top-posting.
* a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to your expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend manually formatting your mail to respond to it. Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface to Micro$soft really sucks.
* Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced.
* Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO).
And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me.
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper.
On 11/12/2007 17:41, Bill Moran wrote: > Again, you're asking a community to offer you free help in spite of the > fact that your tools suck. I'm not saying nobody will do it, all I'm > saying is that if you make it too difficult for people to help, they > won't. I think this is the most important point. Given that highly skilled people on this list give their time freely to help others, I reckon it's simple good manners not to make them spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what it is you're asking. If the Tom Lanes of this world were paid commercial rates for all the free help they've given on this lists, I wonder how much they'd have made by now? :-) Ray. --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've
> carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some
> top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix
> the format, reply, and get another top post reponse.
Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal
Scott).
It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search
of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look
all equally stubborn.
a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers
and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in
technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient
b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome
c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances
to get a reply
d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient
to educate newcomers
I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the
rule.
I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as
a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to
their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or
pollute the list with pro top posting arguments.
This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list.
We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally
better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP.
It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the
Internet get trapped in this kind of thread.
*Especially because we could use their time much better.*
Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time
in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read
interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB.
[1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__;
most frequently.
BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information*
Technology are strict relatives
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Collin Kidder wrote: > I believe that my conforming to the "rule" shows that I am willing to > cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list. That they > cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you that the > real problem we've been talking about is with them. FYI, when I read a comment like this, which is making it very clear that you feel you're smarter than everyone else who disagrees with you, my only response is to shrug, file you under the list of people who clearly don't ever need my help, and never respond to anything you ask about. Dictating policy is something the people *answering* questions get to do, and if your introduction to the list involves insulting them like you've done above I hope you never run into something you need advice about here. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
"Obe, Regina" <robe.dnd@cityofboston.gov> writes: > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm > the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people > with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel > unwelcome. I'm sorry, to what were you referring? To which Greg were you responding to? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
Greg Stark shaped the electrons to read:
> "Obe, Regina" <robe.dnd@cityofboston.gov> writes:
>
> > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail
> > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm
> > the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people
> > with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel
> > unwelcome.
>
> I'm sorry, to what were you referring? To which Greg were you responding to?
I'd like to think my post, but yours are more polite ... the politeness factor is a major thing in making a list work. Comparing Blackberry users to wife-beating zealots is not being nice (or making a good case).
My point was not that people shouldn't follow the rules / preferences of a news group, but rather that there are reasons why people sometimes transgress (habit, software, ignorance). This is an issue best dealt with in the initial sign up mails (repeating the basics of not hijacking threads, not top posting, etc. is always good), and politely thereafter.
I sympathize with frustration at repeat transgressions, but in the end this *not* a moral issue, let alone a religious one, which it seems to be for some, judging by the # of posts.
Now back to work !
Greg W.
DBA, GlobeXplorer
<... usual corporate warning deleted because (a) already posted in first comment and (b) it _is_ silly and (c) I don't wanna tick anyone off anymore...>
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 16:11, Scott Marlowe wrote:
<snip>
> read the old
> messages in this thread, you'll see that I too said it was perfectly
> acceptable some times. Things like "Thanks, that solved it!" are fine
> top posted, although you really should crop the majority of the
> message you're replying to so as not to send a one liner on top of a
> 35k message.
>
Actually interesting point; one issue with top posting is that those who do it
tend to not trim appropriatly the messages they reply to (why would you if
your top posting). If you do trim accordingly, you're already at the bottom
of the email, and so bottom posting comes more naturally. *shrug*
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Thomas Hart wrote: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> >> I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I >> get a >> little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). >> >> A >> > I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style > generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to > top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the relevant > information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not that > difficult to go through and catch up I agree that top-posting can sometimes be easier to read. However, from the perspective of someone who *often* searches the archives for answers it is usually *much* easier to find a complete problem/solution set when the responses are bottom posted and/or interleaved. Ron
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600 > "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've >> carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some >> top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix >> the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. > > Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal > Scott). > It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search > of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look > all equally stubborn. > > > a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers > and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in > technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient > b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome > c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances > to get a reply > d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient > to educate newcomers > > I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the > rule. > I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as > a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to > their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or > pollute the list with pro top posting arguments. > > This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list. > We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally > better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP. > It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the > Internet get trapped in this kind of thread. > > *Especially because we could use their time much better.* > > Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time > in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read > interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB. > > > [1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__; > most frequently. > > BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information* > Technology are strict relatives > I am subscribed to some other technical mailing lists on which the standard is top posting. Those people claim that filing through interleaved quotes or scrolling to the bottom just to see a sentence or two is a waste of their time. It is the same thing only backwards. Me, I don't care either way. I try to conform to whatever is the standard for whatever list it is. Why annoy the people giving free support? I suspect that neither is truly better, and that some of the original / very early / expert members just preferred bottom posting for whatever reasons, and it propagated into the "standard" for this list. -- Stephen
Gregory Williamson wrote: > * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. > Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a > problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to your > expectations. I'm guessing you use Outlook to connect to your Exchange server. In that case, Outlook is the one that top posts, not Exchange. I found a utility which can address the Outlook posting style: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ That site has a similar add-on for Outlook Express. Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is that every time I reply, I have to: (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather than the list (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO (3) change my from identity to the one used for the list; although the list always posts to the identity I have set up for mailing lists, for some reason Thunderbird selects a different identity when I reply. -- Guy Rouillier
On 12/11/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800 > "Keith Turner" <kturner@cloudsystems.com> wrote: > > I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by > > subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on > > the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? > Because it is standard practice on the internet to have lists-headers? > And that is how every standard mail client deals with it? FWIW, this is becoming less true in terms of common clients. Google Mail, for instance, groups primarily by subject. I find it irritating, but it's still a more convenient interface than my other clients for working with mailing lists. The point here is that a lot of people are going to be used to dealing with these other clients that mostly ignore the list headers, so it's less likely to be common knowledge.
On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: > Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is > that every time I reply, I have to: > > (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather > than the list > > (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then > change that from CC to TO Actually, another convention on this list is to "reply all" and leave the individual addresses. It's one of those things that varies wildly between list communities, but there it is.
On 12/12/2007, Stephen Cook <sclists@gmail.com> wrote:
I am subscribed to some other technical mailing lists on which the
standard is top posting. Those people claim that filing through
interleaved quotes or scrolling to the bottom just to see a sentence or
two is a waste of their time. It is the same thing only backwards.
Me, I don't care either way. I try to conform to whatever is the
standard for whatever list it is. Why annoy the people giving free support?
I suspect that neither is truly better, and that some of the original /
very early / expert members just preferred bottom posting for whatever
reasons, and it propagated into the "standard" for this list.
Top posting is bad grammar its like English if I wrote the sentence backwards would you under stand it?
Its as simple as that I can't under stand whats going on if I need to start at the back of (or bottom) and work back. Its like reading a book you start at the beginning and work to the end, Top Posting is like putting the last chapter or the conclusion at the start. It just does not work.
Cutting the original is summarizing what gone before so we can we know the story so far quickly. Maybe we should start teaching this in schools?
Different languages have different rules there are languages that do read right to left rather than left to right it does not mean there is anything wrong with those languages, They are just not used here.
It understand you would backwards sentence the wrote I. If English like its grammar bad is posting top.
(Sounds like something from Star Wars and the meaning has changed)
Peter Childs
On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina <robe.dnd@cityofboston.gov> wrote:
Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome.I guess we have beaten this horse enough though.
Hmm Can't stop laughing I think you managed to break every rule in the book with that post.
Peter.
Peter Childs caused electrons to shape a message:
>
> On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina <robe.dnd@cityofboston.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail
> > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the
> > one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with
> > hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome.
> >
> > I guess we have beaten this horse enough though.
> >
> ------------------------------
>
> Hmm Can't stop laughing I think you managed to break every rule in the book
> with that post.
>
> Peter.
And as they say where I come from, there is _no_ point to beating a dead horse, aside from the sheer joy of the thing.
Seriously -- "top posting bad, bottom posting good" also misses all kinds of points -- intelligent quoting and interspersing comments / answers where they belong is the ticket, when it can be done. Well, off to top post on some other forums ... ;-)
Greg W.
yadda yadda
Guy Rouillier wrote: > (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then > change that from CC to TO Why do you do that? It's unnecessary. > (3) change my from identity to the one used for the list; although the list > always posts to the identity I have set up for mailing lists, for some > reason Thunderbird selects a different identity when I reply. Probably the easiest way to handle this on the postgresql.org server side is to configure the other identity as an alias, so that it allows you to post unmoderated with both. For this, see http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre "I love the Postgres community. It's all about doing things _properly_. :-)" (David Garamond)
Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: > O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you > are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's > content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. Thomas
Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: >> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you >> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's >> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. > > I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than > top-postings. But then that's probably just me. It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote is harder to find. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ "In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation of Cruft Principle." (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6)
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
> >
> > Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> > > On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
> > > have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
> > > lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual,
> > > section x.y.z."
> >
> > That is what <snip> is for :)
> >
> > > I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
> > > get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
> >
> > I can appreciate that but regardless of various "opinions" (mine
> > included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
> > except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
> > everyone avoids top posting.
> >
> > Top posting makes it hard to read.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
>
> Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
> think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
> read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
> I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
> situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
>
> I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
> at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
> wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
> context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
> call-and-response/"bottom posting" advocates. So, your context is above.)
>
> As for the "snip" claim, it has several problems:
>
> 1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
> from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
> draw the thread in a completely new direction.
>
> 2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
>
> 3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
> immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
> slurs being heaped on them by others.
>
> 4. Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
> no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with
> a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
>
> I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
> point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
> should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
> easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
> you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
> pointlessly noisy.
>
> I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
> that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
> cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
> don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
> superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
> too doctrinaire about it.
>
> A
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: >>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you >>> are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's >>> content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. >> >> I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than >> top-postings. But then that's probably just me. > > It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more > so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something > stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as > top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote > is harder to find. > > -- > Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ > "In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not > crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by > the Conservation of Cruft Principle." (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq I agree. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
Gregory Williamson wrote: > > Peter Childs caused electrons to shape a message: > > > > On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina <robe.dnd@cityofboston.gov> wrote: > > > > > > Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled > mail > > > reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if > I'm the > > > one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit > people with > > > hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel > unwelcome. > > > > > > I guess we have beaten this horse enough though. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Hmm Can't stop laughing I think you managed to break every rule in > the book > > with that post. > > > > Peter. > > And as they say where I come from, there is _no_ point to beating a > dead horse, aside from the sheer joy of the thing. > > Seriously -- "top posting bad, bottom posting good" also misses all > kinds of points -- intelligent quoting and interspersing comments / > answers where they belong is the ticket, when it can be done. Well, > off to top post on some other forums ... ;-) > > Greg W. > yadda yadda > <Mr. Picky Mode> Should that not be "Well, off to post on some other fora"? </Mr. Picky Mode> 8¬> Mike
me too. On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: >"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >> Thomas Kellerer wrote: >>> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: >>>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If >>>> you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the >>>> people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to >>>> not top post. >>> >>> I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying >>> than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. >> >> It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much >> more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say >> something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the >> same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the >> actual text they wrote is harder to find. >> >> -- >> Alvaro Herrera >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ "In fact, the basic problem >> with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the >> cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation >> of Cruft Principle." (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our >> extensive FAQ? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > >I agree. -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/
Gregory Stark wrote: > We're not goldfish, we can remember the topic of discussion for at least a few > hours. So can Goldfish. Apparently they have a 3-month+ memory. http://nootropics.com/intelligence/smartfish.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_1)#Goldfish_Memory With a memory like that, perhaps a goldfish should replace the elephant for the mascot, or did the mysql guys already take that one.
Peter Childs wrote: > On 12/12/2007, *Stephen Cook* <sclists@gmail.com > <mailto:sclists@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I am subscribed to some other technical mailing lists on which the > standard is top posting. Those people claim that filing through > interleaved quotes or scrolling to the bottom just to see a sentence or > two is a waste of their time. It is the same thing only backwards. > > Me, I don't care either way. I try to conform to whatever is the > standard for whatever list it is. Why annoy the people giving free > support? > > I suspect that neither is truly better, and that some of the original / > very early / expert members just preferred bottom posting for whatever > reasons, and it propagated into the "standard" for this list. > > > Top posting is bad grammar its like English if I wrote the sentence > backwards would you under stand it? > > Its as simple as that I can't under stand whats going on if I need to > start at the back of (or bottom) and work back. Its like reading a book > you start at the beginning and work to the end, Top Posting is like > putting the last chapter or the conclusion at the start. It just does > not work. > > Cutting the original is summarizing what gone before so we can we know > the story so far quickly. Maybe we should start teaching this in schools? > > Different languages have different rules there are languages that do > read right to left rather than left to right it does not mean there is > anything wrong with those languages, They are just not used here. > > It understand you would backwards sentence the wrote I. If English like > its grammar bad is posting top. > > (Sounds like something from Star Wars and the meaning has changed) > > > Peter Childs Geez I was just throwing in my non-partisan (or should I call it "secular" in this case) 2 cents... Just as different languages have different rules, different mailing lists can have different conventions. The is no law, natural or otherwise, that defines how to respond to an email in any and every situation. My only point was: when in Rome... Anyone claiming an absolute right and wrong in this is just prostelatizing... it isn't even a "rule", it is just a convention or suggestion for getting more responses (because it also includes the knowledgeable people on this list that can't read backwards). Anyway, I do not want to get [further] involved in this, I'm going back to lurking until I learn enough about PostgreSQL to make formatting demands in exchange for my help. -- Stephen
Em Tuesday 11 December 2007 15:47:27 Joshua D. Drake escreveu: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:37:27 +0000 > > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > "Gregory Williamson" <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com> writes: > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > > may contain confidential and privileged information and must be > > > protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized > > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are > > > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply > > > e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ. > > O.k. but the above is *not* user controlled. I think the community > needs to suck it up and live with that. And the good thing is that the indiscriminate use of those disclaimers tend to make them void when really needed. After all, if there are lots of legitimate and intended posts to public mailing lists, who would guess something that is there shouldn't be? :-) Always a good reference: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ -- Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@gmail.com>
Em Wednesday 12 December 2007 10:39:32 Alvaro Herrera escreveu: > > It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more > so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something > stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as > top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote > is harder to find. The worst thing is people who bottom-posts at top-posted messages... Can you see the mess? -- Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@gmail.com>
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > We run this list in English, note. Is that because it's better than Latin? > No: it's because more of the participants like it that way. I bet if we had > a lot of Latin speakers, we'd have made a different decision. And yes, > there's a certain amount of circularity in such convention-picking (because > by choosing English, we surely discriminate against the unilingual Latin > speakers). De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est. -- Lew
Keith Turner wrote: > Thank you for your response. What may be obvious to some isn't always to > others. It's never a bad idea to remind users how you want your data > formatted if there are roadblocks that are not obvious on the surface. Most newsreaders, not just Thunderbird, use the posts' headers to support the "threading" feature - whether or not that's obvious to one as a new user notwithstanding. It is what it is. It won't be obvious to the newcomer what the problem is until someone lets them know. It would be unfortunate if that newcomer were to take such education as a "scolding" and take offense. -- Lew
Trevor Talbot wrote: > On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: > >> Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is >> that every time I reply, I have to: >> >> (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather >> than the list >> >> (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then >> change that from CC to TO > > Actually, another convention on this list is to "reply all" and leave > the individual addresses. I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? That's why my email address here is a separate one just for Usenet; I can pretty much ignore replies that come directly to it. -- Lew
Gregory Williamson wrote: >> Well, off to top post on some other forums ... ;-) statman wrote: > <Mr. Picky Mode> Should that not be "Well, off to post on some other > fora"? </Mr. Picky Mode> 8¬> No. It /can/ be, but it /needn't/ be. Actually, saying "fora" is variously considered affected, pompous or silly, and is done either out of excessive pedantry or humorous rhetorical style. As in this instance. > The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage. > * Ref: Modern English Usage, 2nd Edition, ed. Sir Ernest Gowers, Oxford 1968 (article '-um', p.658). From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum> -- Lew You want picky? I got picky!
Ron St-Pierre wrote: > I agree that top-posting can sometimes be easier to read. However, from > the perspective of someone who *often* searches the archives for answers > it is usually *much* easier to find a complete problem/solution set when > the responses are bottom posted and/or interleaved. The objection people have about a short answer after a long post isn't cured by top-posting. It's cured by editing the quoted material to provide appropriate context without letting the length go bad. Jo: It made the post harder to read. Mo: Why is it bad? Jo: Top-posting. Mo: What was the problem with my post? -- Lew
Gregory Williamson wrote: > * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! > Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the > thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from > *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. > Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not > reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO). Posting in HTML is kind of a no-no. > And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>. Hijacking seems to be more of a > Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me. > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information and must be protected in > accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > (My corporate masters made me say this.) Are they aware that your "confidential" messages are on a public board? Are they aware that routinely and indiscriminately marking all communications as "confidential" when some go to a public venue, can reduce or even eliminate the protection of confidentiality from such marked communications in certain jurisidictions? IANAL, but as I understand it from /The Hacker Crackdown/ by Bruce Sterling, it figured into the defense of a BBS operator accused of disseminating "confidential" AT&T information in the U.S. ca. 1990. -- Lew
Lew wrote: > Trevor Talbot wrote: >> On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is >>> that every time I reply, I have to: >>> >>> (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather >>> than the list >>> >>> (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then >>> change that from CC to TO >> >> Actually, another convention on this list is to "reply all" and leave >> the individual addresses. > > I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting > individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the > list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? Huh, you know you can de-duplicate them at your end, right? Actually I prefer to get the private copy, so that I get the email immediately even if the list server is down or slow. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4 "Ninguna manada de bestias tiene una voz tan horrible como la humana" (Orual)
Lew wrote: > Trevor Talbot wrote: >> On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is >>> that every time I reply, I have to: >>> >>> (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather >>> than the list >>> >>> (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then >>> change that from CC to TO >> >> Actually, another convention on this list is to "reply all" and leave >> the individual addresses. > > I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ > getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read > it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? > > That's why my email address here is a separate one just for Usenet; I > can pretty much ignore replies that come directly to it. > Actually that's set up that way (I'm purely guessing here) for people who subscribe on a "digest" basis, so they can still receive timely replies to their issues without having to read every message as it comes through. I think. Plus, if you'd like (I do), set up a folder for this list, and set up a mail rule that forwards anything with [GENERAL] in the name to the folder. Keeps it nice and clean (even with a couple other pg lists, and a couple apache lists). -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
Leif B. Kristensen wrote: I > me too. t > ' > On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: s >> "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >>> Thomas Kellerer wrote: n >>>> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: o >>>>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If t >>>>> you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the >>>>> people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to t >>>>> not top post. h >>>> I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying e >>>> than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. >>> It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much w >>> more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say o >>> something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the r >>> same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the s >>> actual text they wrote is harder to find. t >>> >>> -- w >>> Alvaro Herrera a >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ "In fact, the basic problem y >>> with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the >>> cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation o >>> of Cruft Principle." (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) f >>> >>> ---------------------------(end of r >>> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our e >>> extensive FAQ? p >>> l >>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq y >> I agree. i > n > g > -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
On 12/15/07, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:
L > Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
O > I > me too.
L > t >
> ' > On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
> s >> "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> >>> Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> n >>>> Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43:
> o >>>>> O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If
> t >>>>> you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the
> >>>>> people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits
> to
> t >>>>> not top post.
> h >>>> I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more
> annoying
> e >>>> than top-postings. But then that's probably just me.
> >>> It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much
> w >>> more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say
> o >>> something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the
> r >>> same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the
> s >>> actual text they wrote is harder to find.
> t >>>
> >>> --
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting > > individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the > > list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? > > Huh, you know you can de-duplicate them at your end, right? Actually I > prefer to get the private copy, so that I get the email immediately even > if the list server is down or slow. Or even better, the list server has options like "eliminatecc" and "rewritefrom" and others that can be set on a per user basis, so you can configure the list exactly how you like it... No need to complain to anyone else that it not your preferred way. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. > -- John F Kennedy
Вложения
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting >>> individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the >>> list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? >>> >> Huh, you know you can de-duplicate them at your end, right? Actually I >> prefer to get the private copy, so that I get the email immediately even >> if the list server is down or slow. >> > > Or even better, the list server has options like "eliminatecc" and > "rewritefrom" and others that can be set on a per user basis, so you > can configure the list exactly how you like it... No need to complain > to anyone else that it not your preferred way. > > Have a nice day, > > Let's have three cheers for an answer that works for everybody :-) (can we stop posting on this thread now? pretty please?) -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Don't put this one on me :). This is a community thing. AndrewS reply > aside, if you review the "will" of the community on this you will see > that top posting is frowned upon. > > I will be the first to step up and pick a fight when I think the > community is being dumb (just read some of my threads ;)) but on this > one, I have to agree. We should discourage top posting, vehemently if > needed. I do top-post if I am asking _about_ the email, rather than addressing its content, like "Is this a TODO item"? You don't want to trim the email because it has context that might be needed for the reply, and bottom-posting just makes it harder to find my question, and the question isn't really related to the content of the email. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I do top-post if I am asking _about_ the email, rather than addressing > its content, like "Is this a TODO item"? You don't want to trim the > email because it has context that might be needed for the reply, and > bottom-posting just makes it harder to find my question, and the > question isn't really related to the content of the email. Strictly speaking, then, that isn't top-posting but inline posting, where "in line" is position 0, with trim, where the amount trimmed is none. -- Lew