Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Top-Posting, Vis-a-Vis Last Night's Fuss
RE: Top-Posting, Vis-a-Vis Last Night's Fuss
From: Stuart Lawler <stuart.lawler_at_visionline.ie>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:49:24 +0100
Top posting is far quicker and a far more efficient way for people with
Screen reading technology to read messages.
From: rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se [mailto:rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se] On
Behalf Of Dominik Riebeling
Sent: 26 August 2007 19:31
Subject: Re: Top-Posting, Vis-a-Vis Last Night's Fuss
On 8/26/07, KANE BROLIN <kbrolin65_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> My main problem last night was not in the veterans' desire to keep
> this list clean. My anger was based on these individuals' choice of
Well, there was quite some fuss about top-posting vs. bottom-posting.
That was *not* by the "veterans" and it absolutely *not* the point.
The point is really simple: there are rules for this list and someone got
asked to follow them by not top-posting. These rules are not for discussion.
It is some degree of showing respect by following rules.
> approach. If you are like I am, you have a life that doesn't involve
> spending the majority of one's day on a mailing list. So you probably
> get confused about concepts such as "top-posting," not fully
> understanding what the word means or why it's a problem.
And what's the problem with asking what the etiquette means if you have
problems understanding it? Why is there a need for the "veterans"
to baby-feed everyone every little step? Or should I consider users on this
list as little kids all the time? Would this be more appropriate in your
> has helped me to do. But it would be a better world if those with
> technical skill and an eye toward precision were to have an ample
> supply of human kindness and empathy to match.
It would also be better if those without technical skills would at least
take the time to read and try to follow the guidelines. They are set up for
a reason, and if they are not understandable it is completely ok to ask. It
is not ok to just ignore them and call others "offensive" while claiming to
follow the rules. Even if you're not aware that you're not following the
rules you should accept that people will point you to the rules only if you
aren't following them.
Just as a comparison, if I come to your house I need to follow your rules,
be they written down or not. And this is regardless if I'm aware of your
rules or not. If I fail to do so someone will most likely ask me to follow
them -- if I don't get thrown out immediately.
Likewise, on this list we are all guests of the people hosting and
administrating this list. They have written down their rules, so they can
require us to be aware of and follow them.
> And, by the way, when the big furor came down last night, the anal
> veterans who made a big deal about top-posting, were actually top-posting
> Whenever you point a finger at someone else, the other four fingers on
> that hand point right back at you, don't they?
Well, as you are that sure about "veterans" who did so you surely can name
them? I re-read the whole thread in the archive and haven't found anyone of
those "anal veterans" (which might include me, not sure whom exactly you are
referring to with that term) used top-posting. There is a big difference
between top-posting and correct quoting, which includes sending back *parts*
of the original mail. The etiquette explains this briefly, and if you want
to read up on the details there is RFC1855 which is also linked from the
etiquette web page.
And I *really* think calling someone "anal veteran" is absolutely
inadequate. If you disliked the "choice of communication" yesterday, is it
really ok to use such communication yourself? These "anal veterans" provide
quite an amount of support for free. Just imagine what you would have to pay
for it if this was commercial support ...
Received on 2007-08-26