[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Simon Robert wrote: > In theory I agree with bottom posting, it is the more logical way to do > it, the structure of the dialogue is maintained and any sense easier to > understand. If bottom posting is confusing some, intersperse instead. There's usually something in the message to which you can reply at an early stage. It is usually *more* confusing to reply to an entire post only by adding your entire comment at the very end of the original. That's what gets someone a reputation as a "me-too troll" - someone who replies to endless messages just by adding "I agree" to the end. If you haven't got something useful to add or if your personal agreement is not specifically required, don't reply at all. Make sure you leave paragraph gaps between the original and your comment, before and after. This reinforces the separation, it allows various email clients to clearly highlight one with regard to the other and it still works in brain-dead clients that don't do any highlighting. > The only problem is people out there in the "real" world, as opposed to > Lugers, usually top post. I have tried bottom posting to "real" people > out there in real world land maybe 5 or 6 times. Bottom posting really means replying after, rather than before, the content which directly relates to your comment. It does not mean waiting until the very end of the original post. Email clients often get this wrong. There can be a setting to "start reply at the top" or "start reply at the end" - *BOTH* are wrong. Start a reply where a reply is indicated. If you find that a reply is not indicated until more than 50% through the original it's probably an indication that you should have snipped some of that preamble that everyone else has already read once. Only retain that portion of the original content that precisely and concisely relates to your specific points of reply. > A couple of responses asking me to resend as I had not sent the one with > my reply, one suggesting that I remember to try and write something and > one apologising for the fact that they weren't good with computers and > had managed to trash my e-mail. Using <snip> is actually MORE important than top or bottom posting. If the content is not directly relevant to your specific comment at that point of the thread, remove the original content. If necessary, splice it in somewhere else. > So I have to mail back explaining (at the top) that my reply is at the > bottom of the e-mail. Break comments where you feel the need. The rest of your original paragraph, whilst worthwhile in the original context, is meaningless to the context of my reply so it's gone. > Bottom IS better. But what can one do when faced with with a world that > doesn't realise this! Repetition and example. > Is there a polite way of dealing with this problem > which saves one from a lengthy correspondence about top versus bottom > posting? I think this could represent such an example. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html