I would only add that if EVERYBODY bottom-posted on a particular forum
and ALWAYS snipped unnecessary prior posts...then I would do the
same...just out of courtesy for established protocol.
Just as I have my own coding conventions which I use for my own code,
yet if I'm editing another owner's source I will follow their
established conventions...just to not break continuity...and of course
not to be a jerk.
mike
Kyle Lutze wrote:
yeah, that was a slight accident, the first one I composed only went
to him since I didn't hit reply-all, and didn't fully edit the second
one. :/
ok, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite sometimes too. Also, I didn't mean to
say wikipedia's definition was a way to go, I was just using that to
show my reason without having to put it all in
Kyle
Mike Klein wrote:
And yet you quoted netdev's entire email for no good reason
whatsoever...another breach of supposed netiquette.
Top vs. bottom posting is a bunch of crap. With 20 years experience
in computing I have yet to see consensus on this issue....regardless
of wikipedia definition.
I subscribe to numerous mail lists/etc. and far prefer top
posts...less scrolling to bottom too see what is being said. If
people snipped orig post than bottom posting would <possibly> be
preferrable...but quite often this isn't the case...and very often
extremely verbose crap like images/etc. (dammit' mom get with the
program) is often left in as well.
mike klein
Kyle Lutze wrote:
now, can't you post correctly in a mailing list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/top_posting I mean come on, a computer
guru not knowing about that?
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
