Off topic: What is "top posting"?

ruby-talk
21

People should also realize that Outlook makes proper bottom posting so
tiresome that even the most ardent will soon give in and just
top-post. And some people are forced to use Outlook because their
workplace only provides an Exchange server and Windows XP. This is why
I use GMail mostly - and because it's actually faster to get a message
Outlook because for some reason checking mail in Outlook is extremely
slow.

If people have solved this problem other ways, I'd be interested in the details.

Les

···

sent from my colleagues from Outlook over Gmail than from Outlook to

22

unknown wrote:

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

I think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume 'most'
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

I've read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there's nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don't like, or I don't like. That's just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

···

William Crawford <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

23

Jeff Pritchard wrote:

Isn't the root of the disagreement the fact that some of us only use the
web portal and others choose to get the email version of the the list?

Worse, there's also the newsgroup comp.lang.ruby. So there's not only 3
methods of accessing this list, there's many different clients for 2 of
the forms.

I assume that when getting the new posting in an email it would be
frustrating to get a long answer out of context, followed by a quoted
question or part of somebody else's reply.

Some email programs (including gmail) now make threads from replies now.
But even without that, most people that top post don't have hugely
complex replies with no context in the message. And if i find I -need-
more context, it's quoted below for a quick glance. So it just doesn't
bother me.

Maybe I just treat email/newsgroup stuff like it's non-professional and
won't always make sense. If I expected perfect grammar, spelling and
full thoughts, I'd probably be annoyed at quite a few people.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

24

No, in fact, it isn't. What you're actually reading is the result of a
gateway. The primary source for this forum (ruby-forum.com/ruby) or
this newsgroup (comp.lang.ruby) is a mailing list:
ruby-tak@ruby-lang.org.

Please don't pretend that either the forum or Usenet is prime here.
They're alternative views on the mailing list, but both are gatewayed
to and from the mailing list.

Forum users: yes, mailing list people and Usenet people get pissed off
with top posters (r) contextless posters because we may *not* have the
originating message immediately in front of us, even with a threading
newsreader or mail reader.

-austin

···

On 9/1/06, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

You know, the problem I have with this answer is that in a forum, the
first post was posted first... And then the reply was posted, with the
first quoted. Before or after, it doesn't really matter, since I read
the first post first.

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
               * austin@zieglers.ca

25

Even if I liked the web interface more (which I don't), I still wouldn't
use it. One of the major problem with it for me is the fact that it's
yet another place I have to go to keep up with things. Email works
excellently for me because it allows me to aggregate communications I
wish to follow in one single place. An RSS-to-email service for
weblogs, mailing lists, and newsletters to inform me of new material in
specific venues all add up to the ability to keep my informational life
managed through a single interface: my mail user agent.

If I used a web forum for all my mailing list activity, I'd have to
visit a half-dozen forums several times a day to keep up -- especially
since a forum doesn't inform me that it has received new material the
way email does. When a forum does inform me of new material, it does so
by email.

As such, I just use email.

Some people don't have this requirement, so they prefer to use the web
forum instead. More power to 'em. I just hope they realize they aren't
the only people in the world involved in the discussion, and accomodate
those of us on the mailing list appropriately.

Besides, I find mutt (my mail user agent) lets me sift through and
respond to messages a heck of a lot faster than Firefox (my browser)
would.

···

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:45:09AM +0900, Jeff Pritchard wrote:

The real question is why isn't either the web version or the email
version clearly superior to everyone? The two are quite different
delivery systems, and yet there is no clear winner over time. We
continue to have VHS and Betamax for eternity. That's what strikes me
as odd.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);

26

Isn't the root of the disagreement the fact that some of us only use the
web portal and others choose to get the email version of the the list?

It isn't the difference between web and email, it is a different
presentation philosophy. The same philosophy can be applied
to either web or email based deliver mechanisms. It also happens
that each philosophy targets a particular style of discussion.

Quite frankly I view one (the typical style used by forums) as a
shallow approach to communications that pivots mostly on being
easy to learn (i.e., it is so simple there is nothing to learn);
while the one used by a good email reader is a very
sophisticated and well thought out method designed to promote
precise communications, but requires significant effort over
time to learn how to use in a way that can be called easy.

Typically people who want to chit chat with others for social
purposes have very little need or desire to put in the effort
required to learn how to make good use of a software package
that can produce precise communications. Hence the web forum
style that has developed is quite effective as a tool for
"social gatherings".

But for detailed technical discussions common to academics,
scientists, engineers, etc., the more precise mechanisms are
much preferred.

Newsgroups where discussion is non-technical are much more
likely to be accepting of top-posting, while newsgroups where
technical topics are the norm are much less accepting of top
posting.

It is perhaps a common and obnoxious habit of pedantic techies
to boost their preferred style even in places where it is an
unnecessary burden on others. It is perhaps an equally common
and obnoxious habit for those who top-post to do it in places
where it is not appropriate, just to rattle the cages of
pedantic techies. (Shame on us all...)

In a web forum setting, one typically reads down a thread from top to
bottom and only occasionally needs to reference the quoted stuff when
the context isn't clear from what they read up above.

There is virtually no continuity in context available in that
way. Half the time it isn't even possible to determine exactly
which article is being referenced, much less what part of it.

That has a *very* significant limiting effect on the discussion
that occurs. But given the editors typically available via a
web browser, few people would make use of the different style
anyway!

I assume that when getting the new posting in an email it would be
frustrating to get a long answer out of context, followed by a quoted
question or part of somebody else's reply.

The real question is why isn't either the web version or the email
version clearly superior to everyone? The two are quite different
delivery systems, and yet there is no clear winner over time. We
continue to have VHS and Betamax for eternity. That's what strikes me
as odd.

See the discussion above. There are indeed two mechanisms, but
there are also two targets. Each mechanism was honed for a
different target.

···

Jeff Pritchard <jp@jeffpritchard.com> wrote:

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson&gt;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

27

Leslie Viljoen wrote:

People should also realize that Outlook makes proper bottom posting so
tiresome that even the most ardent will soon give in and just
top-post.

I can usually force myself to follow the conventions the other person started. If there's anything more confusing than top-posting, it's when you get two people stubborn (or inperceptive) enough to use different styles.

More vexing in Outlook is the (maybe default only?) lack of properly quoting previous messages. This makes more complex discussions at work very, very annoying since there's no simple to let you differentiate between quoted text and your reply if you decide to inline replies to specific questions after them instead of just replying to a confusing tangled barrage of questions with a confusing tangled barrage of spam. Of course, you could use a different text colour, but that way lies madness.

People that don't delete irrelevant passages from quotes text considered stabworthy too.

David Vallner

PS: I wonder if Terry Pratchett's Mrs. Cake character was a direct reference to this practice...

28

William Crawford wrote:

Some email programs (including gmail) now make threads from replies now. But even without that, most people that top post don't have hugely complex replies with no context in the message. And if i find I -need- more context, it's quoted below for a quick glance. So it just doesn't bother me.

Still, it's proper form to think of people that feel uncomfortable skipping around a message to get the context, and don't like keeping the whole thread or quoted post in their heads to find out who was answering to what where. Remember that this is a free-time activity for most of the participating and they don't necessarily want to have to exercise full concentration because someone asking for help (which is the prevalent topic of most threads, at least originally) couldn't bother keeping the text concise.

Maybe I just treat email/newsgroup stuff like it's non-professional and won't always make sense. If I expected perfect grammar, spelling and full thoughts, I'd probably be annoyed at quite a few people.

Weirdly enough, I do expect, enforce, and am a general bitch over those on here. (Or at least a honest attempt - the "not my native language" excuse looks so out of place when your post didn't contain a single capital letter.) The topic of this mailing list is a serious one, and that warrants an at least somewhat mature approach to posting here in my opinion. (Random outbreaks of inanity notwithstanding - mature, not stick-up-butt.)

David Vallner

29

I've become far more comfortable and used to top-posting in almost all
correspondence primarily because the threading capabilities of my
mailreaders works almost flawlessly. The general argument I have for
top-posting is that scanning all messages in a thread is far easier if you
top-post, since I don't have to read through the same context again and
again in each following message. In an ideal world, everyone would have all
the contextual emails or posts available and neatly threaded and each
message would only contain content germane to that response, as this message
does (with quoted text from previous responses available as needed). If
everyone had a perfectly-threaded reader, that would work fine, as it does
on well-threaded forums where quoting previous messages is usually optional
and the UI handles visually organizing posts where appropriate.

An additional argument for top-posting is that I can immediately read the
response without having to scan through what is sometimes dozens of lines of
context I've already read. The idea that every email should provide full
context or even require partial context is asinine, and I have no pity for
someone missing a message in the sequence. Especially in the case of
top-posting, it's not that much more difficult to scan previous responses
from bottom to top. Look at my email...it says "Re: something". Go look for
the "something" email and subsequent replies. Your flawed client is not my
problem.

Most clients also do not appropriately bottom-post (as in, don't "stupid
post" by just putting text at the bottom) without manual intervention. When
I'm receiving hundreds of emails a day I want to respond to, bottom-posting
and trimming context easily triples the time to deal with each...or worse.
If I can hit reply, type my two sentences, and send it off, I get more done.
My time is infinitely more important to me than yours.

In practice I see the value of bottom posting, and even when I top-post I
frequently will say "see comments inline below". I don't see the original
quote as being part of a conversation...rather I see it as providing
optional context when a response is general (as when I top-post) or
mandatory context when referring to specific passages (as when I bottom-post
or "inline comment"). I think we're all smart enough to either keep up with
a thread, read through the top-posts in our reader of choice, or (god
forbid!) read from the bottom up so other folks don't have to burn cycles
cutting and pasting.

···

--
Contribute to RubySpec! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec
Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
Ruby User @ ruby.mn
JRuby Developer @ www.jruby.org

30

Leslie Viljoen wrote:

People should also realize that Outlook makes proper bottom posting so
tiresome that even the most ardent will soon give in and just
top-post. And some people are forced to use Outlook because their
workplace only provides an Exchange server and Windows XP. This is why
I use GMail mostly - and because it's actually faster to get a message
sent from my colleagues from Outlook over Gmail than from Outlook to
Outlook because for some reason checking mail in Outlook is extremely
slow.

Very true! Sometimes it's not just painful, but *impossible* to
edit correctly.

If people have solved this problem other ways, I'd be interested in the details.

Yes, please share. (Though I only use Outlook at work nowadays.)

Hal

31

Leslie Viljoen wrote:

People should also realize that Outlook makes proper bottom posting so
tiresome that even the most ardent will soon give in and just
top-post. And some people are forced to use Outlook because their
workplace only provides an Exchange server and Windows XP. This is why
I use GMail mostly - and because it's actually faster to get a message
sent from my colleagues from Outlook over Gmail than from Outlook to
Outlook because for some reason checking mail in Outlook is extremely
slow.

If people have solved this problem other ways, I'd be interested in the details.

Les

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
will remedy Outlooks crud...

32

unknown wrote:
> This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
> reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
> that presented in a "forum".

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

I think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume 'most'
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

Speak for yourself. I assume that people should be accomodated in the
most reasonable manner possible. Ultimately, the most potentially put
out by top-posting are the blind, who (using screen readers) would end
up with an unnavigable mass of out-of-order text. I'm not blind, and I
have no other reason to use a screen reader, but that doesn't mean I
shouldn't accomodate them. Luckily, I can accomodate them AND suit my
own preferences, since I find having to start reading at the bottom and
work my way upward to be annoying.

Et cetera.

I've read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

Yes, we can all understand even inline top posting, but it's really sort
of annoying nonetheless.

And yes, I really have seen inline top posting before. Thankfully, not
on this list. It was awful.

> This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
> reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
> that presented in a "forum".

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there's nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

Wait . . . you mean that greater-than symbols as indicators of old text
(like in this email) aren't a useful clue to you?

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don't like, or I don't like. That's just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

Read the rules set forth for ruby-talk. It may be sort of a stalemate
in general, but one should make an effort to follow the conventions of
the list/forum/whatever being used, even when arguing about top-posting
there.

As quoted from the ruby-talk (aka comp.lang.ruby) FAQ section detailing
the list's/newsgroup's/forum's posting guidelines:

  # PLEASE NOTE! Include quoted text from previous posts before your
    responses. And selectively quote as much as is relevant.

  # Use plain text; don't use HTML, RTF, or Word. Most mail or newsreader
    programs have an option for this; if yours doesn't, get a (freeware)
    program or use a web- based service that does.

  # Include examples from files as in-line text; don't use attachments.

Even though I use the mailing list interface, I have no illusions that
this is a newsgroup first. The mailing list (and especially the forum)
interface is provided as a courtesy, as I understand it. As far as I
know standard usenet etiquette, I'll try to observe it. Luckily for us,
these rules are spelled out at:
  http://hypermetrics.com/rubyhacker/clrFAQ.html#tag22

Luckily for me in particular, these posting guidelines exactly suit my
preferences for mailing list email as well.

···

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:08:36PM +0900, William Crawford wrote:

> William Crawford <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid

33

Whoops. I thought usenet was primary, and said something to that effect
in a response to a separate subthread. Ouch. Mea culpa.

. . . though I prefer the mailing list version, personally, and that's
what I'm using.

···

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 02:33:39AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

On 9/1/06, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>You know, the problem I have with this answer is that in a forum, the
>>first post was posted first... And then the reply was posted, with the
>>first quoted. Before or after, it doesn't really matter, since I read
>>the first post first.
>This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
>reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
>that presented in a "forum".

No, in fact, it isn't. What you're actually reading is the result of a
gateway. The primary source for this forum (ruby-forum.com/ruby) or
this newsgroup (comp.lang.ruby) is a mailing list:
ruby-tak@ruby-lang.org.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The ability to quote is a serviceable
substitute for wit." - W. Somerset Maugham

34

This is not true.
    NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either. If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol...

    Speak for yourself...

    You are, again, speaking for yourself...

    Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text? Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What's
with the skimming?

    Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
    Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people
appreciated. Yes, you can't make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

    P.S. Context is nice to have...

"William Crawford" <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ca86814dd08dcb7f44275f3c327208a@ruby-forum.com...

···

unknown wrote:

William Crawford <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote:
This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

I think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume 'most'
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

I've read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there's nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don't like, or I don't like. That's just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

35

"William Crawford" <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ca86814dd08dcb7f44275f3c327208a@ruby-forum.com...

unknown wrote:

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

    This is not true.
    NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either. If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol...

I think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume 'most'
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

    Speak for yourself...

I've read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

    You are, again, speaking for yourself...

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there's nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

    Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text? Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What's
with the skimming?

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don't like, or I don't like. That's just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

    Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
    Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people
appreciated. Yes, you can't make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

    Just to make a point, I will post this message again with top posting
schemes and you I'll wait for you to tell me that they were just as easy to
understand. I don't think you can do so, honestly...

···

William Crawford <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote:

36

This is not true.
    NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either. If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol...

"William Crawford" <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ca86814dd08dcb7f44275f3c327208a@ruby-forum.com...

unknown wrote:

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

    Speak for yourself...

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

    You are, again, speaking for yourself...

I think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume 'most'
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

I've read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

    Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text? Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What's
with the skimming?

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there's nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

    Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
    Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people
appreciated. Yes, you can't make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

    Just to make a point, I will post this message again with top posting
schemes and you I'll wait for you to tell me that they were just as easy to
understand. I don't think you can do so, honestly...

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don't like, or I don't like. That's just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

    Protocols help us communiate. You don't like communicating?

···

William Crawford <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote:

37

This is not true.
    NNTP (usenet) has many properties in common with UDP. The messages are
not guaranteed to arrive in order nor is there a guarantee that they will
arrive at all! This has nothing to do with your news reader, either. If
and when your new server recieves the post is beyond your control, hence
the evolution of usenet protocol...

"William Crawford" <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ca86814dd08dcb7f44275f3c327208a@ruby-forum.com...

unknown wrote:

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first. Any decent usenet
reader these days presents threads properly.

    Speak for yourself...

I think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here. We all assume 'most'
people are using this forum/list/newsgroup the same as we are.

    You are, again, speaking for yourself...

I've read this through ruby-forum.com (my preference) and tin
(comp.lang.ruby) and I have not had any trouble understanding top or
bottom posted stuff.

    Why is the > character insufficient for marking the quoted text? Are
the clients of which you speak incapable of displaying newlines? What's
with the skimming?

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

And some of them are entirely different than usenet. Bottom posting
like this is hard to read in some clients because there's nothing to
visually identify the added parts, other than the > in front. You have
to skim, and sometimes read, old information over again before you are
able to find the new information.

    Life is not perfect but we go on living it.
    Bottom posting provided context to the new text that most people
appreciated. Yes, you can't make everyone happy but you can try to make
the majority happy and it was exactly this majority that determined this
protocol.

Neither way is perfect, and some people are going to choose the one you
don't like, or I don't like. That's just a fact of life, and not worth
complaining about anymore. The war on top-posting was a stalemate.

    Wow, this top-posting really is hard. I almost made a similar mistake
to the one I had done, before...
    Is this any more clear?

···

William Crawford <wccrawford@gmail.com> wrote:

38

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet. There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

No, in fact, it isn't. What you're actually reading is the result of a
gateway. The primary source for this forum (ruby-forum.com/ruby) or
this newsgroup (comp.lang.ruby) is a mailing list:
ruby-tak@ruby-lang.org.

Please don't pretend that either the forum or Usenet is prime here.

Once you gateway it to Usenet, that *is* prime. There are
instantly *millions* of potential readers, plus it is archived
and will be read by people decades from today. Usenet eclipses
anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
regardless of how it all began.

They're alternative views on the mailing list, but both are gatewayed
to and from the mailing list.

Forum users: yes, mailing list people and Usenet people get pissed off
with top posters (r) contextless posters because we may *not* have the
originating message immediately in front of us, even with a threading
newsreader or mail reader.

In fact, in a forum where the context supposedly is available, it is
*not* effectively available. Usually it is impossible to determine
even which article is being responded to, much less which part of the
article the comment applies to.

That simply is not effective communications.

···

"Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/1/06, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson&gt;
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

39

Top posting is less logical than bottom posting.

We all (maybe almost all?) read from top to bottom,
thus new entries are appended at bottom.

I dont ever top post, and I rarely (in fact I'd
even claim never) see top posting in the ~ dozen
mailing list I do read/participate.

Dont think "etiquette" comes before logic.
I dare to claim that whoever comes up with
etiquette ALSO follows logic. :wink:

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

40

Actually, I've been thinking about this . . . and based on my own
experience, when quoting happens in a web forum, it's "always" at the
top -- thus providing de facto bottom-posting. Posting above the quote
seems an absurd possibility at best in a web forum (and yes, I've been
involved in a LOT of web forum discussion). The danger with a
multi-interface venue like this, with regard to web forums, seems to be
the potential and likelihood for contextless posts in the forum that
might prove less than perfectly clear for those using the mailing list
or newsgroup.

···

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 08:30:35PM +0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Jeff Pritchard <jp@jeffpritchard.com> wrote:
>Isn't the root of the disagreement the fact that some of us only use the
>web portal and others choose to get the email version of the the list?

It isn't the difference between web and email, it is a different
presentation philosophy. The same philosophy can be applied
to either web or email based deliver mechanisms. It also happens
that each philosophy targets a particular style of discussion.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent: a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/