top/bottom posting WAS [GNUz] GNU/Linux ...

[Jim Cheetham]

Nick Rout wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:23:30 +1200
> InfoHelp <ask@infohelp.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oh..
>>
>>InfoHelp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is that a reference to DG? 
>>>Nick Rout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you mean the proposition we are debating? How about "top posters must
>>>>die" 
>>>
>>I had thought this meant 'put your comments below (& not above) the 
>>quoted text'..
> 

Middle posting - that's the way!

(I dislike it when the top isn't edited, so there's a good chance of 
missing the new data, and the bottom is left in instead of being 
deleted, when I have to scroll down looking to see if there are any more 
hard-to-spot comments, and there aren't :-(

-jim

> 
> it was a dig at you for top posting, but an entirely ironical one as I
> was doing the same.
> 
> top posting vs inline vs bottom posting is a perrenial debate.,
> sufficient to say that its easier to read bottom posting on a long
> thread because you get the thread history before the latest post viz:
> 
> 
> ">>>>how do i run foo-6.2 on redhat 2.0
> 
> 
>>>>you run redhat 2.0? loser its way out of date
> 
> 
>>>you could try compiling foo-6.2 from source so it will run against the
>>>libs on deadrat 2.0
> 
> 
>>except foo-6.2 needs version 5.5 of libbar and the version of libbar on
>>redhat 2 is 0.99
> 
> 
> Looks like an OS upgrade"
> 
> 
> Except you have to scroll through the message to see the latest stuff
> and some people can't be bothered and prefer a top post. there are only
> half a dozen people on the list but i bet each has their own perspective
> on the best way to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GNUz mailing list
> GNUz@inode.co.nz
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz
>