[kwlug disc.] kwlug mailing list etiquette

[Joe]

Originating Subject: Re: [kwlug disc.] panic, do_resume problem

Donald Tees wrote:
> Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 February 2007 9:02 pm, Unsolicited wrote:
>>  
>>> YMMV.
>>>     
>>
>> Indeed it does.  My mileage has shot from "not *too* bad... 
>> damn-close-to-10L/100km" to "holy schneikes, 14 goddamned Litres at a 
>> buck a Litre per 100km??!!" this winter with the temp changes...  
>> Unreal!
>>
>>   
> A bit of a new topic, but I really do believe that it is up to *us* to 
> solve it. For our kind of work (and a very large proportion of the 
> population) there is absolutely no need to drive as part of our daily 
> work methodology.
Indeed it is a new topic which brings me to my next question for those 
who have the opinion that top posting, not trimming quotes, etc. is poor 
etiquette. (since the mail list etiquette subject still hasn't been put 
to rest) Is it considered acceptable etiquette to take an email with a 
subject related to a knopmyth kernel upgrade issue and for each 
subsequent message...rant about top vs bottom posting without changing 
the subject line to something relevant to the content of the email body? 
I'm not bringing this up to be a smart ass or embarrass anybody, as the 
last thing I would want to do is embarrass someone by bringing it to 
everyones attention that an individual has spinach stuck between their 
teeth and later come to the realization that I have spinach stuck 
between my own teeth as well. Rather, I wanted to bring my own opinion 
to this membership that leaving a subject that is irrelevant to the 
content of the email body could be interpreted as some as a greater sin 
than both top posting and failing to trim the 'excess fat' from 
quotations.  I am however new to this list so I'm not certain as to what 
policies are in place, if any. Could someone please clarify?

Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:

> Top posting's a broken communication method, and it almost *always* (greater than 95% in my 
> experience) is done for at least one of these two reasons:
>
> 1) the person responding has a mail client which put the cursor there by 
> default, and
>
> 2) the person responding is either too lazy or ignorant (the true meaning of 
> the word, not the insulting meaning) to realize that they should be trimming 
> the responses.
>
> #1 is solved 99% of the time by simply reconfiguring their MUA when they're 
> not looking.  They don't exert any extra effort to bottom post and they 
> almost never notice.
>
> #2 isn't something just for top-posters; there are TONS of bottom posters who 
> will reply to a message, not trim a damn thing, include *ALL* headers, 
> footers (including multi-line footers and footers which have already been 
> quoted (!!)) and issue a one-word reply.  I think I have a far greater 
> dislike for those people than I do for top-posters.
>
> (Actually, I think a number of those bottom posters are actually former 
> top-posters to which someone's done the old "place cursor at bottom" 
> switcheroo gag, and never noticed.  <g>)
>
>   
I find your statistical analysis of "greater than 95%" an interesting 
number. I'm curious as to how many top posters you've actually 
interrogated and/or methods you used to come up with that number.

Contrary to your opinions and experience with top posters on the dozen 
busy mailing lists you're on, I don't fall into either of the 2 
categories you mentioned. I share the opinion with Unsolicited that if 
someone is into a subject frequently, it is both time consuming and 
irritating to have to get through the excess top verbiage every time to 
read the new message.

I have a neutral opinion on "trimming the fat" off of original 
quotations. Many times I've seen quotes taken out of context by excess 
trimming and in those cases I quite prefer the excess verbiage posted 
below the new message as a reference in case I forgot what had 
originally been stated. Things are often taken out of context either 
because the fallible nature of the human author or because the authors 
intent is the spreading of propaganda. As I get older and gain 
experience I am becoming more conscientious of the later intent 
(especially in politics). However it can also be more efficient to have 
the original quotes trimmed down *if* they don't lose the original 
authors intended meaning.

I quite enjoy the "bloat that is thunderbird" as some may call it. Not 
only because I can share it's profiles on the multitude of operating 
systems I use, but also because I can use extensions that allow me to 
manipulate and format other peoples messages to appear the way I want 
"my" messages to appear. I had actually changed the thunderbird default 
formatting from bottom posting to top posting because that is *my* 
preference. There have been many excellent points as to why bottom 
posting is preferred. Although I agree they are all valid reasons for 
preferring bottom posting...being the esoteric free thinker I believe 
myself to be, it doesn't change *my* preference for top posting. I only 
conform to bottom posting out of a conscious respect for other peoples 
preference, not because I agree bottom posting is superior in any way or 
the format of my email messages is going to have a significant impact on 
my life or the way I work.