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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
