Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #232 > unrolled thread

Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 09:28 +0100
    Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 10:11 +0100
      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> - 2021-04-25 10:25 +0100
        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 10:47 +0100
          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 11:04 +0100
            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-25 12:13 +0100
              Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 12:27 +0100
                Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 12:33 +0100
    Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 09:11 +0100
      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-26 09:19 +0100
      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 07:55 -0700
        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-26 17:11 +0100
          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-26 16:47 +0000
          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 10:45 -0700
            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Marc Auslander <marcausl@gmail.com> - 2021-04-26 14:04 -0400
            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-26 18:20 +0000
              Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 11:44 -0700
                Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 16:02 -0600
                  Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 16:49 -0700
                    Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 18:39 -0600
                      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 09:15 -0700
                        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 12:26 -0600
                          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:20 -0700
                            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:37 -0600
                          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Laurence Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> - 2021-04-28 21:40 +0100
                            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-28 22:01 +0100
                            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2021-04-29 09:19 +0100
                        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-28 02:29 +0000
                        OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 16:14 +0100
                          Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:42 -0700
                            Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:42 +0100
                              Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:07 -0700
                                Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:37 +0100
                          Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2021-04-28 16:59 +0100
                          Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:45 -0600
                            Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:50 +0100
                              Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:57 -0600
                                Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:10 +0100
                                Re: OT: posting/emailing style Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2021-04-28 20:33 +0100
                                  Re: OT: posting/emailing style Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 14:31 -0600
                                    Re: OT: posting/emailing style The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-04-28 13:38 -0700
                                  Re: OT: posting/emailing style Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2021-04-28 21:35 +0100
                Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> - 2021-04-26 23:29 +0100
              Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 16:01 -0600
            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> - 2021-04-26 23:28 +0100
              Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 16:57 -0700
                Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 18:56 -0600
                  Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 09:32 -0700
                    Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 10:59 -0600
                      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 10:26 -0700
                        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 12:28 -0600
                          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:23 -0700
                            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:50 -0600
                        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:51 -0600
                          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:15 -0700
                            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 11:48 -0600
                              Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:58 -0700
        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-26 20:00 +0100
          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 12:25 -0700
            Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 16:26 -0500
        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-27 05:07 +0000
      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Bill H <bhtemp99@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2021-04-26 09:06 -0700
      Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 15:54 -0500
        Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 22:58 +0100
          Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 17:55 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#293

On 4/26/2021 5:39 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 4/26/21 5:49 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> This message, as you trimmed it and I replied to it, fits on a single 
>> screen.
> 
> What I'm replying to would fit in a (new) tweet.


I'll believe you. I have no interest in Twitter, have never used it, and 
know next to nothing about it.


> IMHO, Tweets aren't in and of themselves sufficient for actual honest to
> $DEITY communications.


I'll believe that too.



> When you start getting into communications where someone takes more than
> five minutes to type a reply chances are good that their message, much
> less a sufficiently detailed response, will not fit on a number of
> screens and will require scrolling.  Especially if one or both parties
> enforces hard line breaks between 70 and 80 characters.


Yes.


>> Would it be worse if if my reply was top-posted?
> 
> Definitely. >
>> Maybe slightly worse, but it wouldn't be a big deal to me.


> More than slightly.


We disagree. See my point below.



> You're using English, so I'm going to assume that it's familiar to you.
> As such, you are probably also familiar with the top to bottom flow of
> normal English writing. 


And all (almost all?) other languages.


> You probably also realize that this is a
> representation of chronological ""speech (of sorts).
> > With that in mind, I speculate that you would be disconcerted to hear
> someone answer a question before the question was asked.  Be it a time
> jump or whatever.  So ... why should textual representation of speech be
> any different than the verbal form of speech?


We agree. Of course it shouldn't. My point is simply that if someone 
asks me a question like

               How old are you?

and I reply

               83.

               > How old are you?

even though it's illogical and wrong, it's *very* easy to read and 
understand the reply.

Contrast that with

               83

               two screens full of quoted material ending with

               > How old are you?


*That* is very hard to read and understand the reply without scrolling 
all the way to end and then perhaps back up to reread the reply (unless 
you remember the question from whenever it was asked (which I seldom do).

That's the reason why in my opinion, sufficient trimming is often more 
important than whether someone top posts or bottom posts


> Once you get beyond a certain length of email or discussion, there is a
> sequence of multiple points.  And it's quite common to give participants
> the opportunity to respond to various points during the course of a
> longer discussion.  I view interspersing point with counter points to be
> the same way.  This is typically referred to in-line style.
> 
> I strongly prefer in-line style.


As do I, as you can see from my reply here.

Once again, my only point is that regardless of what you and I prefer, 
for simple replies to simple points that have been trimmed to fit on a 
single screen, it's not as important as it it sometime is in other cases.

And despite what some people say, as far as I'm concerned, that goes for 
e-mail as well as usenet posts. Top-posting is not a good way to do it. 
It's as illogical and wrong in e-mail as it is is usenet. Even worse are 
those people who reply to e-mail (or usenet posts) without quoting 
anything; it may work for them if they read very few messages each day, 
but it doesn't work for me, since I read many and can almost never 
remember much of yesterday's messages, and I don't want to have go back 
and look at yesterday's messages (which are no longer on my screen) to 
see what they're talking about.


> Bottom posting does maintain
> conversation chronology.  --  As in someone new to the conversation, say
> reading a newsgroup / mailing list archive. --  Can read from the start
> at the top to the end at the bottom in one pass and likely not be confused.
> 
> whack
> out
> of
> that
> of
> all
> throws
> posting
> top


Of course. We basically agree on everything here except the minor (to 
me) point of a brief answer to a statement or point that all fits on a 
single screen. We agree that it's wrong, but disagree on how much of a 
problem it usually is.



> Aside:  I view "but my client does $THIS automaticaly" comments to be an
> excuse at best.  Also, the size and popularity of the institution that
> creates a tool to do something does not speak to it's properness, rather
> simply nods to it's likely probability.



I completely agree. If a program doesn't put the reply cursor where you 
want it, either switch to a different program or get into the habit of 
moving the cursor to where you want it.

However, note that no program can put the cursor wherever you want it 
for inline posting.

By the way, I might be wrong, but I think it was Microsoft that in its 
programs (Outlook and Outlook Express) started the habit of 
top-posting--something that many other programs copied and many people 
also copied, thinking that since their program puts the cursor there, 
that was the *correct* way to do it.

Another by the way: every now and then I write to some come company, 
either asking a question or making a request, and their reply often 
contains a note warning me that if I don't don't top-post when replying 
to their reply, my message will be ignored. That always pisses me off, 
but I do as they say, since I wouldn't have written if I didn't think it 
was important.


-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#304

On 4/27/21 10:15 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> And all (almost all?) other languages.

I know that there are some languages that don't use the Left to Right / 
Top to Bottom scheme.

English used to use serpentine back and forth (left to right and then 
right to left and then left to right...) top to bottom before written 
English was standardized.

> My point is simply that if someone asks me a question like
> 
>               How old are you?
> 
> and I reply
> 
>               83.
> 
>               > How old are you?
> 
> even though it's illogical and wrong, it's *very* easy to read and 
> understand the reply.

That example is easy.

	25

	> How old are you?

	27

	> How old is your older sister?

	23

	> How old is your older brother?

	20

	> How old is your younger brother?

	5

	> How long have you been at your job?

	3

	> How old is your niece?

Now, quickly, what question is 23 an answer to?

Each pair of questions and answers, in their own vacuum is / can be 
largely independent of order.  But when you start having multiple pairs 
close to each other without clear separation can get quite confusing. 
Especially if there are more Q & A pairs than will fit on the screen. 
(I'll spare us all the time of adding about 20 more Q & A pairs.)

> Contrast that with
> 
>               83
> 
>               two screens full of quoted material ending with
> 
>               > How old are you?
> 
> *That* is very hard to read and understand the reply without scrolling 
> all the way to end and then perhaps back up to reread the reply (unless 
> you remember the question from whenever it was asked (which I seldom do).

Agreed.

> That's the reason why in my opinion, sufficient trimming is often more 
> important than whether someone top posts or bottom posts

Trimming implies that there is content not directly related tot he 
reply.  A series of 20 questions and 20 associated answers is not 
subject to such trimming.  ;-)

> As do I, as you can see from my reply here.

:-)

> Once again, my only point is that regardless of what you and I prefer, 
> for simple replies to simple points that have been trimmed to fit on a 
> single screen, it's not as important as it it sometime is in other cases.

I largely agree with your statement.  However, it fails to take into 
account the number of questions and answer pairings and how easy it is 
to conflate them between pairings.

> And despite what some people say, as far as I'm concerned, that goes for 
> e-mail as well as usenet posts. Top-posting is not a good way to do it.

I'll expand it to any written medium.  Probably any recorded medium 
(including audio and video).

> Of course. We basically agree on everything here except the minor (to 
> me) point of a brief answer to a statement or point that all fits on a 
> single screen. We agree that it's wrong, but disagree on how much of a 
> problem it usually is.

I agree that full content, both question and answer, fitting on one 
screen can be largely indifferent.

Though I strongly prefer to always use a singular pattern that works in 
all cases; namely inline posting, in logical / chronological order.

> However, note that no program can put the cursor wherever you want it 
> for inline posting.

I largely agre.

Though for short single Q / A messages, defaulting the cursor to below 
the Q is the proper location to start the A.

> By the way, I might be wrong, but I think it was Microsoft that in its 
> programs (Outlook and Outlook Express) started the habit of 
> top-posting--something that many other programs copied and many people 
> also copied, thinking that since their program puts the cursor there, 
> that was the *correct* way to do it.

Agreed.

> Another by the way: every now and then I write to some come company, 
> either asking a question or making a request, and their reply often 
> contains a note warning me that if I don't don't top-post when replying 
> to their reply, my message will be ignored. That always pisses me off, 
> but I do as they say, since I wouldn't have written if I didn't think it 
> was important.

I agree.

I recently ran into that while talking to support for something.  I 
ended up copying their points to above the "#REPLY ABOVE THIS LINE#" and 
using my traditional inline style of point / response.

I also trimmed what I thought was boiler plate between the #REPLY..." 
line and what looked like the final #Ticket#... line.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#346

On 4/27/2021 11:26 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 4/27/21 10:15 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> And all (almost all?) other languages.
> 
> I know that there are some languages that don't use the Left to Right /
> Top to Bottom scheme.


Left-to-right, yes, but that's irrelevant to what I said. I don't know 
of any languages that are not top-to-bottom; do you?


> 
> English used to use serpentine back and forth (left to right and then
> right to left and then left to right...) 


Boustrophedon, but I don't think English ever did that. Ancient Greek did.




> top to bottom before written
> English was standardized.
> 
>> My point is simply that if someone asks me a question like
>> 
>>               How old are you?
>> 
>> and I reply
>> 
>>               83.
>> 
>>               > How old are you?
>> 
>> even though it's illogical and wrong, it's *very* easy to read and 
>> understand the reply.
> 
> That example is easy.
> 
> 	25
> 
> 	> How old are you?
> 
> 	27
> 
> 	> How old is your older sister?
> 
> 	23
> 
> 	> How old is your older brother?
> 
> 	20
> 
> 	> How old is your younger brother?
> 
> 	5
> 
> 	> How long have you been at your job?
> 
> 	3
> 
> 	> How old is your niece?
> 
> Now, quickly, what question is 23 an answer to?


That's not top-posting, that's interspersed posting, and a weird 
combination of top-interspersed posting. I've never seen anyone do that.


> 
> Each pair of questions and answers, in their own vacuum is / can be
> largely independent of order.  But when you start having multiple pairs
> close to each other without clear separation can get quite confusing.
> Especially if there are more Q & A pairs than will fit on the screen.
> (I'll spare us all the time of adding about 20 more Q & A pairs.)
> 
>> Contrast that with
>> 
>>               83
>> 
>>               two screens full of quoted material ending with
>> 
>>               > How old are you?
>> 
>> *That* is very hard to read and understand the reply without scrolling 
>> all the way to end and then perhaps back up to reread the reply (unless 
>> you remember the question from whenever it was asked (which I seldom do).
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> That's the reason why in my opinion, sufficient trimming is often more 
>> important than whether someone top posts or bottom posts
> 
> Trimming implies that there is content not directly related tot he
> reply.  A series of 20 questions and 20 associated answers is not
> subject to such trimming.  ;-)


Right. Trimming is not the answer to everything.


> 
>> As do I, as you can see from my reply here.
> 
> :-)
> 
>> Once again, my only point is that regardless of what you and I prefer, 
>> for simple replies to simple points that have been trimmed to fit on a 
>> single screen, it's not as important as it it sometime is in other cases.
> 
> I largely agree with your statement.  However, it fails to take into
> account the number of questions and answer pairings and how easy it is
> to conflate them between pairings.



No, it *does* take that into account. Note that I didn't say trimming 
always takes away the top-posting problem. I said "for simple replies to 
simple points that have been trimmed."


> 
>> And despite what some people say, as far as I'm concerned, that goes for 
>> e-mail as well as usenet posts. Top-posting is not a good way to do it.
> 
> I'll expand it to any written medium.  Probably any recorded medium
> (including audio and video).
> 
>> Of course. We basically agree on everything here except the minor (to 
>> me) point of a brief answer to a statement or point that all fits on a 
>> single screen. We agree that it's wrong, but disagree on how much of a 
>> problem it usually is.
> 
> I agree that full content, both question and answer, fitting on one
> screen can be largely indifferent.


Glad to hear it. That was almost my only point.


> Though I strongly prefer to always use a singular pattern that works in
> all cases; namely inline posting, in logical / chronological order.


As I said, so do I.



>> However, note that no program can put the cursor wherever you want it 
>> for inline posting.
> 
> I largely agre.
> 
> Though for short single Q / A messages, defaulting the cursor to below
> the Q is the proper location to start the A.


Yes. Again, I agree that's the right way to do it, but the wrong way 
doesn't matter very much "for simple replies to simple points that have 
been trimmed to fit on a single screen."


>> By the way, I might be wrong, but I think it was Microsoft that in its 
>> programs (Outlook and Outlook Express) started the habit of 
>> top-posting--something that many other programs copied and many people 
>> also copied, thinking that since their program puts the cursor there, 
>> that was the *correct* way to do it.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Another by the way: every now and then I write to some come company, 
>> either asking a question or making a request, and their reply often 
>> contains a note warning me that if I don't don't top-post when replying 
>> to their reply, my message will be ignored. That always pisses me off, 
>> but I do as they say, since I wouldn't have written if I didn't think it 
>> was important.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I recently ran into that while talking to support for something.  I
> ended up copying their points to above the "#REPLY ABOVE THIS LINE#" and
> using my traditional inline style of point / response.


I've several times thought about doing that, but I decided it was risky 
and didn't.


> I also trimmed what I thought was boiler plate between the #REPLY..."
> line and what looked like the final #Ticket#... line.

-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352

On 4/28/21 9:20 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> Left-to-right, yes, but that's irrelevant to what I said. I don't know 
> of any languages that are not top-to-bottom; do you?

I'm not aware of any languages that don't use top-to-bottom.  But I 
wouldn't bet a cup of coffee that there isn't one.

> Boustrophedon, but I don't think English ever did that. Ancient Greek did.

I thought I had heard that some English did that VERY EARLY before 
standardization was even remotely a thing.

> That's not top-posting, that's interspersed posting, and a weird 
> combination of top-interspersed posting. I've never seen anyone do that.

ACK

Typing it hurt my brain.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#376

On 27/04/2021 19:26, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> Each pair of questions and answers, in their own vacuum is / can be 
> largely independent of order.  But when you start having multiple pairs 
> close to each other without clear separation can get quite confusing. 
> Especially if there are more Q & A pairs than will fit on the screen. 
> (I'll spare us all the time of adding about 20 more Q & A pairs.)
>
I once had a correspondent who interspersed their replies, but for each
one put the response before the quote, thus:

Response 1
> Quote 1
Response 2
> Quote 2

And so on. It took some time to realise what they had done!

-- 
rgds
LAurence
<><

You had mail, but the super-user read it, and deleted it!
~~~ Random (signature) 1.6.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377

On 28/04/2021 21:40, Laurence Taylor wrote:
> I once had a correspondent who interspersed their replies, but for each
> one put the response before the quote, thus:
> 
> Response 1
>> Quote 1
> Response 2

I don not normally get further than a couple of lines of a post like 
that before giving up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379

In article <o4GdnbOWvNLJVRT9nZ2dnUU78b_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
   Laurence Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
> On 27/04/2021 19:26, Grant Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Each pair of questions and answers, in their own vacuum is / can be 
> > largely independent of order.  But when you start having multiple pairs 
> > close to each other without clear separation can get quite confusing. 
> > Especially if there are more Q & A pairs than will fit on the screen. 
> > (I'll spare us all the time of adding about 20 more Q & A pairs.)
> >
> I once had a correspondent who interspersed their replies, but for each
> one put the response before the quote, thus:

> Response 1
> > Quote 1
> Response 2
> > Quote 2

> And so on. It took some time to realise what they had done!

perfect if the  reader shows different colours

-- 
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#328

Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> writes:

> We agree. Of course it shouldn't. My point is simply that if someone
> asks me a question like
>
>               How old are you?
>
> and I reply
>
>               83.
>
>               > How old are you?
>
> even though it's illogical and wrong, it's *very* easy to read and
> understand the reply.
>
> Contrast that with
>
>               83
>
>               two screens full of quoted material ending with
>
>               > How old are you?

How about something like this:

                Answering your question, I am 83 years old.

                two screens full of quoted material ending with

                > How old are you?

Don't forget, back in the days before Usenet people were using snail
mail, and there was no any quoting whatsoever. However, they were still
able to reply and answer all the questions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#345 — OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 09:15:30, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote 
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 4/26/2021 5:39 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/21 5:49 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> This message, as you trimmed it and I replied to it, fits on a 
>>>single  screen.
>>  What I'm replying to would fit in a (new) tweet.
>
>
>I'll believe you. I have no interest in Twitter, have never used it, 
>and know next to nothing about it.
>
Twitter is odd; it will be different for every user, depending on who 
they "follow". (And which subjects, if they follow those.)
>
>> IMHO, Tweets aren't in and of themselves sufficient for actual honest to
>> $DEITY communications.
>
>
>I'll believe that too.
>
It's actually quite a good discipline for those of us who tend to be 
verbose (-:. But yes, it can be limiting.
[] (denotes "[lines snipped here]")
>>> Would it be worse if if my reply was top-posted?
>>  Definitely. >
>>> Maybe slightly worse, but it wouldn't be a big deal to me.
>
>
>> More than slightly.
>
>
>We disagree. See my point below.
>
I agree with whichever of you (I forget which) said that top-posting is 
bad, but tolerable if the whole Q&A can be seen in one window (not 
screen; I don't read full-screen).

Special case - Brian Gaff (the talking sofa): we tolerate his 
top-posting because we know he's blind. (I do wish he wouldn't use a 
proper sig-separator though.)
>
>
>> You're using English, so I'm going to assume that it's familiar to you.
>> As such, you are probably also familiar with the top to bottom flow of
>> normal English writing.
>
>
>And all (almost all?) other languages.
>
Interesting ponder: do languages that go in different directions (e. g. 
right-to-left as in Hebrew, or vertically as in some of the oriental 
languages) have this top/bottom/inter posting debate?
[]
>We agree. Of course it shouldn't. My point is simply that if someone 
>asks me a question like
>
>              How old are you?
>
>and I reply
>
>              83.
>
>              > How old are you?
>
>even though it's illogical and wrong, it's *very* easy to read and 
>understand the reply.
>
>Contrast that with
>
>              83
>
>              two screens full of quoted material ending with
>
>              > How old are you?
>
>
>*That* is very hard to read and understand the reply without scrolling 
>all the way to end and then perhaps back up to reread the reply (unless 
>you remember the question from whenever it was asked (which I seldom do).

Well put. (As for whoever suggested repeating the question in the 
answer, fine, but why should anyone have to?)
>
>That's the reason why in my opinion, sufficient trimming is often more 
>important than whether someone top posts or bottom posts
>
Thoroughly agree.

>
>> Once you get beyond a certain length of email or discussion, there is a
>> sequence of multiple points.  And it's quite common to give participants
>> the opportunity to respond to various points during the course of a
>> longer discussion.  I view interspersing point with counter points to be
>> the same way.  This is typically referred to in-line style.
>>  I strongly prefer in-line style.
>
Me too - with trimming. As for "the reader should not be obliged to go 
back and read other posts to get the full context" as an argument 
_against_ trimming: I take the point, but disagree where drift (or 
evolution, to give a less negative word) has occurred. For example, I 
don't think this discussion of posting style - which it has now become - 
would benefit from the section on playing 78RPM records (which is how 
uk.tech.broadcast became added in the first place, as there are several 
there - one in particular - who are knowledgeable about and interested 
in that, there) was still included.

Trimming is an art; you can trim too much or too little. Too little is 
far commoner, IMO.
>
>As do I, as you can see from my reply here.
>
>Once again, my only point is that regardless of what you and I prefer, 
>for simple replies to simple points that have been trimmed to fit on a 
>single screen, it's not as important as it it sometime is in other cases.

Agreed (though I think we'd all prefer chronological too [possibly even 
Brian if there was enough trimming]).
>
>And despite what some people say, as far as I'm concerned, that goes 
>for e-mail as well as usenet posts. Top-posting is not a good way to do

Agreed!

>it. It's as illogical and wrong in e-mail as it is is usenet. Even 
>worse are those people who reply to e-mail (or usenet posts) without 
>quoting anything; it may work for them if they read very few messages 
>each day, but it doesn't work for me, since I read many and can almost

Indeed! My reaction is usually "you what?", "what are you on about?", or 
similar. (Twitter has a tendency to do this: I sometimes see tweets that 
say "You're right there, especially where bacon is involved", and 
however much I try, I can't find the tweet they're responding to. 
[Though whichever of you doesn't use it, don't let that put you off 
Twitter. It can be enjoyable.])
[]
>> Aside:  I view "but my client does $THIS automaticaly" comments to be an
>> excuse at best.  Also, the size and popularity of the institution that
>> creates a tool to do something does not speak to it's properness, rather
>> simply nods to it's likely probability.
>
>
>
>I completely agree. If a program doesn't put the reply cursor where you 
>want it, either switch to a different program or get into the habit of 
>moving the cursor to where you want it.
>
>However, note that no program can put the cursor wherever you want it 
>for inline posting.

Well ...

I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to 
encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened 
about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast 
(1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others 
what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they 
just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, 
that their entire reply should go there.

Of course, some software developers then sealed the fate by also putting 
the .sig above the quoted text. That was the end.
>
>By the way, I might be wrong, but I think it was Microsoft that in its 
>programs (Outlook and Outlook Express) started the habit of 
>top-posting--something that many other programs copied and many people 
>also copied, thinking that since their program puts the cursor there, 
>that was the *correct* way to do it.

They certainly were among the offenders, and they certainly were the 
ones who misplaced the .sig .

(I remember there were some clients - possibly even including O/OE - 
which had a setting, so you could choose where the cursor appeared when 
you started a reply/followup. But I fear it mostly defaulted to top - 
though possibly with good intentions as I've described above.)

There were also clients that wouldn't let you post if the percentage of 
new text was less than some amount (-:
>
>Another by the way: every now and then I write to some come company, 
>either asking a question or making a request, and their reply often 
>contains a note warning me that if I don't don't top-post when replying 
>to their reply, my message will be ignored. That always pisses me off, 
>but I do as they say, since I wouldn't have written if I didn't think 
>it was important.
>
Yes, I've seen those. Like one of the followups says, I sometimes copy 
their entire text from below the obvious separator line, so I can answer 
their questions in my usual manner.
>
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm a self-made man, thereby demonstrating once again the perils of unskilled
labor..." - Harlan Ellison

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#350 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On 4/28/2021 8:14 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 09:15:30, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote

> I agree with whichever of you (I forget which) said that top-posting is
> bad, but tolerable if the whole Q&A can be seen in one window (not
> screen; I don't read full-screen).


I'm the one who said that. Thanks for agreeing.


> 
> Special case - Brian Gaff (the talking sofa): we tolerate his
> top-posting because we know he's blind. (I do wish he wouldn't use a
> proper sig-separator though.)


OK.


>>> You're using English, so I'm going to assume that it's familiar to you.
>>> As such, you are probably also familiar with the top to bottom flow of
>>> normal English writing.
>>
>>
>>And all (almost all?) other languages.
>>
> Interesting ponder: do languages that go in different directions (e. g.
> right-to-left as in Hebrew, or vertically as in some of the oriental
> languages) have this top/bottom/inter posting debate?


As I just said to Grant, left-to-right or right-to-left is irrelevant. 
So is vertical writing. As far as I know, all languages are top-to-bottom.



>>We agree. Of course it shouldn't. My point is simply that if someone 
>>asks me a question like
>>
>>              How old are you?
>>
>>and I reply
>>
>>              83.
>>
>>              > How old are you?
>>
>>even though it's illogical and wrong, it's *very* easy to read and 
>>understand the reply.
>>
>>Contrast that with
>>
>>              83
>>
>>              two screens full of quoted material ending with
>>
>>              > How old are you?
>>
>>
>>*That* is very hard to read and understand the reply without scrolling 
>>all the way to end and then perhaps back up to reread the reply (unless 
>>you remember the question from whenever it was asked (which I seldom do).
> 
> Well put. 


Thanks.


> (As for whoever suggested repeating the question in the
> answer, fine, but why should anyone have to?)


Right (but I know several people who do that. It always seems strange to 
me).


>>That's the reason why in my opinion, sufficient trimming is often more 
>>important than whether someone top posts or bottom posts
>>
> Thoroughly agree.


Thanks again. Note (Grant should also note this) that I said "often," 
not "always."


>>> Once you get beyond a certain length of email or discussion, there is a
>>> sequence of multiple points.  And it's quite common to give participants
>>> the opportunity to respond to various points during the course of a
>>> longer discussion.  I view interspersing point with counter points to be
>>> the same way.  This is typically referred to in-line style.
>>>  I strongly prefer in-line style.
>>
> Me too - with trimming. As for "the reader should not be obliged to go
> back and read other posts to get the full context" as an argument
> _against_ trimming: I take the point, but disagree where drift (or
> evolution, to give a less negative word) has occurred. For example, I
> don't think this discussion of posting style - which it has now become -
> would benefit from the section on playing 78RPM records (which is how
> uk.tech.broadcast became added in the first place, as there are several
> there - one in particular - who are knowledgeable about and interested
> in that, there) was still included.
> 
> Trimming is an art; you can trim too much or too little. Too little is
> far commoner, IMO.


I agree with all three of those statements.



>>As do I, as you can see from my reply here.
>>
>>Once again, my only point is that regardless of what you and I prefer, 
>>for simple replies to simple points that have been trimmed to fit on a 
>>single screen, it's not as important as it it sometime is in other cases.
> 
> Agreed (though I think we'd all prefer chronological too [possibly even
> Brian if there was enough trimming]).


If not all, mot of us here, as I said more than once in my replies to 
Grant. However, there are many exceptions to that--people who 
inexplicably insist that top-posting is better.

>>
>>And despite what some people say, as far as I'm concerned, that goes 
>>for e-mail as well as usenet posts. Top-posting is not a good way to do
> 
> Agreed!


One more thanks.


>>it. It's as illogical and wrong in e-mail as it is is usenet. Even 
>>worse are those people who reply to e-mail (or usenet posts) without 
>>quoting anything; it may work for them if they read very few messages 
>>each day, but it doesn't work for me, since I read many and can almost
> 
> Indeed! My reaction is usually "you what?", "what are you on about?", or
> similar. (Twitter has a tendency to do this: I sometimes see tweets that
> say "You're right there, especially where bacon is involved", and
> however much I try, I can't find the tweet they're responding to.
> [Though whichever of you doesn't use it, don't let that put you off
> Twitter. It can be enjoyable.])


It's me who doesn't use it. I'll take your word for it that it can be 
enjoyable, but I'm still not interested. I'm not interested in any 
"social media." I barely have the time for e-mail and usenet, and I'm 
not interested in starting something else.


>>> Aside:  I view "but my client does $THIS automaticaly" comments to be an
>>> excuse at best.  Also, the size and popularity of the institution that
>>> creates a tool to do something does not speak to it's properness, rather
>>> simply nods to it's likely probability.
>>
>>
>>
>>I completely agree. If a program doesn't put the reply cursor where you 
>>want it, either switch to a different program or get into the habit of 
>>moving the cursor to where you want it.
>>
>>However, note that no program can put the cursor wherever you want it 
>>for inline posting.
> 
> Well ...
> 
> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to
> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. 


Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't see why that should encourage that and I 
don't understand the rationale for their doing it the way they did.



> Unfortunately, this happened
> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast
> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others
> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they
> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software,
> that their entire reply should go there.


Perhaps, but I think that for most people, because the cursor was there, 
that meant that that was the correct place to put their reply.



> Of course, some software developers then sealed the fate by also putting
> the .sig above the quoted text. That was the end.



Alas, yes.



-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#355 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 08:42:37, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote 
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>As I just said to Grant, left-to-right or right-to-left is irrelevant. 
>So is vertical writing. As far as I know, all languages are 
>top-to-bottom.
>
Yes, I don't know of any that go upwards, either.
[]
>>  Trimming is an art; you can trim too much or too little. Too little 
>>is
>> far commoner, IMO.
>
>
>I agree with all three of those statements.
>
My turn to thank _you_ (-:.
[]
>> similar. (Twitter has a tendency to do this: I sometimes see tweets that
>> say "You're right there, especially where bacon is involved", and
>> however much I try, I can't find the tweet they're responding to.
>> [Though whichever of you doesn't use it, don't let that put you off
>> Twitter. It can be enjoyable.])
>
>
>It's me who doesn't use it. I'll take your word for it that it can be 
>enjoyable, but I'm still not interested. I'm not interested in any 
>"social media." I barely have the time for e-mail and usenet, and I'm 
>not interested in starting something else.
>
Well ... it (only slightly) irritates me that Facebook, Twitter, and the 
rest get referred to as "social media", as if it was a new thing! As far 
as I'm concerned, usenet is most definitely a social medium (!). OK, it 
has 'groups that are nominally about specific things (but then I believe 
at least Facebook does too), but even those are with very few exceptions 
prone to chat (like this thread); so, you _do_ use social medi* - and 
have been doing so since 1980 or whenever! Just not a graphical one.

As for Twitter, I started in the hope of getting signatures for a 
petition (spectacularly ineffective!), but stayed with it: I've built up 
what they call a timeline - basically people whose tweets I like to read 
- that is exclusive to me. It's not - as I use it, anyway - that unlike 
usenet, other than that it isn't divided by subject. In terms of the 
volume of text I read, it's probably similar too - granted in terms of 
actual tweets its higher, because of the size limit (280 I think). But 
don't read this as me urging you to try it: before I did (for the reason 
mentioned), I was fairly determined I wasn't going to go for any of the 
"modern" social media. I still don't do Facebook, though mainly because 
(from when I've followed a link to it) I can't stand the way it works 
technically: basically top-posting with knobs on, AFAICS 
(endlessly-loading pages).
[]
>>>However, note that no program can put the cursor wherever you want it 
>>>for inline posting.
>>  Well ...
>>  I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did 
>>it to
>> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting.
>
>
>Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't see why that should encourage that and I 
>don't understand the rationale for their doing it the way they did.
>
If you want to encourage snipping-and-interposting, and you put the 
cursor at the _end_ of the quoted text, then the first thing they have 
to do is scroll to the top (unless they'd composed their entire reply in 
their head).
>
>
>> Unfortunately, this happened
>> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast
>> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others
>> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they
>> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software,
>> that their entire reply should go there.
>
>
>Perhaps, but I think that for most people, because the cursor was 
>there, that meant that that was the correct place to put their reply.
>
That's what I said - *if there was no-one to teach them better*, that 
was the obvious conclusion.
>
>
>> Of course, some software developers then sealed the fate by also putting
>> the .sig above the quoted text. That was the end.
>
>
>
>Alas, yes.
>
Indeed. IIRR Dominic Jain's Quotefixes did fix that, though I can't 
remember for sure (his one for Outlook stopped working with Outlook 2007 
[the one that was part of the Office suite that introduced "ribbons"], 
though was still OK up to 2003).
>
>
3
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Dook, that was great but I think the line needs
awe. Can you do it again, giving it just a little awe?"

"Sure, George," said Wayne and looking up at the cross said:
"Aw, truly this man is the son of God."
(recounted in Radio Times, 30 March-5 April 2013.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On 4/28/2021 9:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 08:42:37, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote

>>> similar. (Twitter has a tendency to do this: I sometimes see tweets that
>>> say "You're right there, especially where bacon is involved", and
>>> however much I try, I can't find the tweet they're responding to.
>>> [Though whichever of you doesn't use it, don't let that put you off
>>> Twitter. It can be enjoyable.])
>>
>>
>>It's me who doesn't use it. I'll take your word for it that it can be 
>>enjoyable, but I'm still not interested. I'm not interested in any 
>>"social media." I barely have the time for e-mail and usenet, and I'm 
>>not interested in starting something else.
>>
> Well ... it (only slightly) irritates me that Facebook, Twitter, and the
> rest get referred to as "social media", as if it was a new thing! 


I'm not crazy about that term either. Notice that I put it in quotation 
marks. I also don't like "social distancing."



> As far
> as I'm concerned, usenet is most definitely a social medium (!). 


OK, change what I wrote to *new* social media, or even "Facebook and 
Twitter."


> OK, it
> has 'groups that are nominally about specific things (but then I believe
> at least Facebook does too), but even those are with very few exceptions
> prone to chat (like this thread); so, you _do_ use social medi* - and
> have been doing so since 1980 or whenever! 


I started using usenet around 1994. But I started with computer bulletin 
boards earlier, around 1986.



>>> Of course, some software developers then sealed the fate by also putting
>>> the .sig above the quoted text. That was the end.
>>
>>
>>
>>Alas, yes.
>>
> Indeed. IIRR Dominic Jain's Quotefixes did fix that,


Yes.


> though I can't
> remember for sure (his one for Outlook stopped working with Outlook 2007
> [the one that was part of the Office suite that introduced "ribbons"],
> though was still OK up to 2003).


I don't like the ribbons either, but I I've learned to tolerate them. 
Unfortunately, Microsoft often tries impose its new way of doing things 
on people without giving them a choice. If I were in charge of 
Microsoft, even if I personally liked ribbons, I would not have imposed 
it on everyone using Office, but just made it a choice. The same with 
where Microsoft positions the cursor in its e-mail programs; they should 
have made it a choice





-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 10:07:38, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote 
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 4/28/2021 9:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> Well ... it (only slightly) irritates me that Facebook, Twitter, and the
>> rest get referred to as "social media", as if it was a new thing!
>
>
>I'm not crazy about that term either. Notice that I put it in quotation 
>marks. I also don't like "social distancing."
>
I don't like many modern coinages, especially those to do with the 
pandemic. Mainly because there's no need for them at all: distancing, or 
even separation, would be fine on their own (-:.
>
>
>> As far
>> as I'm concerned, usenet is most definitely a social medium (!).
>
>
>OK, change what I wrote to *new* social media, or even "Facebook and 
>Twitter."
>
I suppose "social media" does have a place, because Facebook and Twitter 
are so yesterday, don't you know: I could say WhatsApp, Instagram, and 
so on, but I know that mentioning even _those_ makes me a granddad: 
basically, if _I_ have heard of it, it's out of date (-:. [Plus, 
allegedly, the reaction by the young that _anything_ their parents - let 
alone grandparents - use is to be abandoned on principle; though I 
suspect this alleged reaction is exaggerated by the (older) media.]
[]
>> prone to chat (like this thread); so, you _do_ use social medi* - and
>> have been doing so since 1980 or whenever!
>
>
>I started using usenet around 1994. But I started with computer 
>bulletin boards earlier, around 1986.
>
OK, probably me too - I forget the thresholds.
[]
>I don't like the ribbons either, but I I've learned to tolerate them.

I don't dislike the ribbon concept itself as such, other than that it 
takes up more screen space (especially where that's limited, such as on 
an older laptop).

>Unfortunately, Microsoft often tries impose its new way of doing things 
>on people without giving them a choice. If I were in charge of 
>Microsoft, even if I personally liked ribbons, I would not have imposed

We did have someone in at work to talk about the New Ways; the talks 
were voluntary, but I did go. I will admit that his enthusiasm - which I 
think was genuine - was rather fun, and I thought his point that the 
existing menu system was creaking at the seams, such that (even before 
the Change) new features were being added in places that weren't really 
appropriate (so you had to _know_ where to go for them).

>it on everyone using Office, but just made it a choice. The same with

The trouble with that is, nobody likes change - so, given the choice, 
people will stay with the old way they know, even if the new way is 
better (if only more logical).

Having said that, I continue to use 2003 by preference over 2007!

When it came in, the discussion included the suggestion that if people 
could be introduced gradually, rather than all at once, they'd gradually 
see the advantage. Which might be true, but with something as radical as 
the ribbon, I can't see how you'd do it - there'd have to be a point 
where the major change is made. (I did find a utility - Swiss [.ch], I 
think it was - that reverted the 2007 ribbon to pretty close to the 2003 
menu, while still giving access to the general improvements; it worked 
quite well.)

>where Microsoft positions the cursor in its e-mail programs; they 
>should have made it a choice
>
Ah, so they weren't one of the ones that did. I couldn't remember.
>
>
>
>
5
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We no longer make things, but sell each other consultancy on how to run
consulatancies better. (Michael Cross, Computing 1999-3-4 [p. 28].)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

In article <2HP9q9GTvXigFw8f@255soft.uk>,
   J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[Snippy]

> I like to _think_ that software that put the cursor at the top did it to 
> encourage snipping-and-inline-posting. Unfortunately, this happened 
> about the time usage (of news and email) was spreading sufficiently fast 
> (1980s perhaps?) that people took to it without being shown by others 
> what was good practice, so never learnt about snipping-and-inline - they 
> just assumed, since the cursor was placed at the top by the software, 
> that their entire reply should go there.

From my old man memory, it was the late 1990s when computer enthusiasts
who were generally quite au fait with netiquette, were overrun by Hoi
Polloi getting into computing and networking, unfortunately as is often
the case, generally accepted methods of etiquette get trampled underfoot
by the ignorant who can't be bothered to learn or accept the earlier
wisdoms.

Dave

Nb: Back in the days when I got our computer connected via a (I think)
14.4K Dialup modem I sourced a booklet that explained Netiquette... and
even all these years later, I still try to follow that advice.

D.

-- 

Dave Triffid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#354 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On 4/28/21 9:14 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> There were also clients that wouldn't let you post if the percentage of 
> new text was less than some amount (-:

I've seen that as a server side filter on news servers.  I like them, 
assuming they are tuned to something reasonable.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 10:45:05, Grant Taylor 
<gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote (my responses usually follow points 
raised):
>On 4/28/21 9:14 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> There were also clients that wouldn't let you post if the percentage 
>>of  new text was less than some amount (-:
>
>I've seen that as a server side filter on news servers.  I like them, 
>assuming they are tuned to something reasonable.
>
Might have been a server thing - it's a Long Time since I encountered 
it. Around 70% rings a faint bell. Certainly encouraged at least 
snipping, though probably (a) encouraged _too much_ snipping [such a 
100%] and (b) didn't of itself encourage interposting.
>
>
3
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We no longer make things, but sell each other consultancy on how to run
consulatancies better. (Michael Cross, Computing 1999-3-4 [p. 28].)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On 4/28/21 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Might have been a server thing - it's a Long Time since I encountered 
> it. Around 70% rings a faint bell. Certainly encouraged at least 
> snipping, though probably (a) encouraged _too much_ snipping [such a 
> 100%] and (b) didn't of itself encourage interposting.

The thing that it did effectively deter was the full history of all the 
messages being quoted in each and every single reply.  Even a 50/50 
ratio would protect against that.

I've seen a LOT of threads in Gmail for work where a bunch of people 
reply (top posting) with 1-3 lines of text and 150 lines of quotes 
hidden.  ~shudder~



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 10:57:28, Grant Taylor 
<gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote (my responses usually follow points 
raised):

[For clarification (as it's got snipped): the concept of posting (though 
I think emails too!) being blocked for insufficient new content.]

>On 4/28/21 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> Might have been a server thing - it's a Long Time since I encountered 
>>it. Around 70% rings a faint bell. Certainly encouraged at least 
>>snipping, though probably (a) encouraged _too much_ snipping [such a 
>>100%] and (b) didn't of itself encourage interposting.
>
>The thing that it did effectively deter was the full history of all the 
>messages being quoted in each and every single reply.  Even a 50/50 
>ratio would protect against that.
>
>I've seen a LOT of threads in Gmail for work where a bunch of people 
>reply (top posting) with 1-3 lines of text and 150 lines of quotes 
>hidden.  ~shudder~
>
Yes, that's another bad effect of top-posting: people often don't even 
_know_ how long the tail they're posting is. (I have a feeling I've seen 
ones a lot longer than 150 lines, but fortunately I've been out of that 
milieu for a while now.)
>
People used to top-posting do sometimes genuinely find an interposted 
post/email hard to follow (though I suspect that's partly because of how 
Outlook mangles things): I once had a boss who more or less ordered me 
not to do it. So I obeyed - but only in emails to him (-:
>
3
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We no longer make things, but sell each other consultancy on how to run
consulatancies better. (Michael Cross, Computing 1999-3-4 [p. 28].)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> The thing that it did effectively deter was the full history of all
> the messages being quoted in each and every single reply.  Even a
> 50/50 ratio would protect against that.
>
> I've seen a LOT of threads in Gmail for work where a bunch of people
> reply (top posting) with 1-3 lines of text and 150 lines of quotes
> hidden.  ~shudder~

I think the reason why some people quote the entire history is because
they use servers which don't store much history. So if it isn't quoted
you cannot go back and see the beginning of the conversation.

I've programmed a key to go to the bottom of the article but it often
isn't worth the effort of pressing it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373 — Re: OT: posting/emailing style

On 4/28/21 1:33 PM, Richmond wrote:
> I think the reason why some people quote the entire history is because 
> they use servers which don't store much history. So if it isn't quoted 
> you cannot go back and see the beginning of the conversation.

I understand the logic, but I disagree.

Unfortunately, that would imply thought and intention behind it. 
Something I've come to expect the opposite of from most people.  They 
would have to think about it and make a conscious choice to do something.

Conversely top posting with full history below takes virtually no 
effort.  Pruning that trail does take effort, especially when some 
providers go out of their way to hide it.

I'm going with the lowest common denominator, read laziest, here.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web