Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences
- From: secretspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (SgtSilicon)
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 05:57:32 GMT
Who says DTCC.EDU is authoritative for the internet? Who says a
REQUEST FOR COMMENT is the same thing as a standard? And even if it
were a standard (which it isn't), who has adopted it? As far as I'm
concerned the answer to all of those questions is no one with any
brains, that's who.
Further, when I read that top posting evolved from a Microsoft
product, then I knew the credibility of that material is about zero.
Top posting has been around a LONG LONG time. Before MS even
published a news capable program (or email client for that matter).
It has it's origins in the BBSs of yore. It made sense there, and it
does in newsgroups too, despite what some self appointed leadership
says to the contrary.
I find it interesting also, that right out of the gate the RFC states
that it is NOT a standard of any kind, yet later criticizes MS for
"ignoring" standards (relating to top vs. bottom posting). When the
HELL are the SHEEP going to wise up?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:53:05 -0500, Eugene Nine <no@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Howard Nelson wrote:
>
>> I am not a Usenet historian but I wonder if bottom posting had something
>> to do with relative primitive editing and low bandwidth issues early on in
>> the game. I for one prefer to read top posting in almost every case since
>> I have usually been following the thread and don't want to scroll down
>> pages of comment I have already read. Just imagine how long a single post
>> on this thread would be with everyone bottom posting. And if you are going
>> to heavily edit previous comments you might as well top post and let the
>> reader go back in the thread as needed. I do appreciate specific comments
>> inserted, where appropriate, in a reply.
>>
>> Since this has become a formatting thread I do have a question. Many of my
>> posts have weird line breaks when they show up on usenet. I am using
>> Outlook express, plain text, Western European (ISO)
>>
>> Thank You
>> Howard
>Bottom posting is actually the correct form for usenet posting.
>See RFC 1855. Section 3.1.1
>
>http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
>
>"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews"
>
>"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
>the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
>original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
>they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
>proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
>possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving
>context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!"
>
>Top posting was "innovated" by Microsoft when they ignored this (among many
>other) internet standards.
>
>Posting should follow normal written text (top to bottom) this makes
>searching the answer to a question possible. You may be searching for
>something years later and find a thread and need to have it readable.
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - Bush blows up women and children in Pakistan
- Next by Date: Re: Corolla front corner light bulb change
- Previous by thread: Re: posting in the real world (was) Toyota, etc.
- Next by thread: Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
