|
|
Posted by kashe on 10/21/05 02:33
Blah, blah, top-post, blah, blah summarize, blah, blah,
normal, blah, blah. forces, blah, blah, society, blah, blah, blah,
book, blah, blah, convenion, blah, blah, tiresome (got one right,
finally) ....
Yippee.
Just keep up with the class.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:16:01 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>kashe@sonic.net wrote on [Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:00:07 GMT]:
>>
>>
>> Broken again, jerk.
>>
>>
>> If they're not keeping up, let them read the rest of the crap.
>
>Because not everyone receives every post in order, or at all. There may
>not BE a rest of the crap.
>
>If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
>summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
>text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
>understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
>especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
>to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing
>the original.
>
>Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
>conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
>said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message
>is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read
>from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this
>convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the
>question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance
>increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the
>message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread
>was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will
>be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about,
>due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|