[139573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Top-posting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael DeMan)
Tue Apr 12 02:46:02 2011
From: Michael DeMan <nanog@deman.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinGa7yNQ4f0be+7fQA_YHXRj46jZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:45:52 -0700
To: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Paul,
Your point is taken - but actually this is a bit of a conundrum, at =
least for me.
Generally what I see is that younger people who grew up using email when =
they were children desire to bottom post or post inline whereas folks =
that originally utilized email primarily to communicate technical =
information only generally prefer to top-post.
I believe that top-posting is fine and that have also found use for =
(what do they call it, reverse-hugarian or reverse-polish) notation for =
doing things like naming and structuring software packages to also be =
immensely useful.
Either way, I ultimately agree with you - except with the possible =
exception that possibly if the NaNog list really care - they could setup =
a survey of all list members, have everybody vote, then we know on this =
list that when we ask questions where we expect timely answers we can =
expect the answers to possibly be buried in a myriad of text. Another =
problem with bottom-posting is the <SNIP> of anything above, etc.
Cheers - and sorry for having a little late night fun bothering =
everybody with noting something that I have seen mostly as a social =
change on how people communicate via email over the past 30 years.
- Mike
P.S. - meanwhile, for an email list like NaNog - I am still hoping that =
most folks want efficiency on answers to questions - and if the need old =
data are clever enough to realize that there are plenty of ways via HTTP =
to find those 'weirdo top-post commentors' listed with their posts in =
chronological and/or relevance level - with prior commentary properly =
sorted.
- mfd
On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:06 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> I am top-posting to show that this entire thread is retarded.
>=20
> I certainly could have bottom-posted, because I don't use Outlook for
> this list, but the point here is -- is this what the NANOG list has
> really become? Really?
>=20
> So sad.
>=20
> - ferg
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Dobbins, Roland <rdobbins@arbor.net> =
wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>> I have used Evolution and IMAP with exchange servers in the past, =
so, I'm not convinced this is an entirely accurate statement.
>>=20
>>=20
>> And in fact, I'm posting this message in plain-text via the OSX =
Mail.app connected via native Exchange protocols to an Exchange server.
>>=20
>> There's even a plug-in for Mail.app in order to make inline posting =
easier.
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
> Engineering Architecture for the Internet
> fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
> ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
>=20
