Re: Netiquette - a rational view
- From: glsummer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:30:51 GMT
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:23:40 -0000, Mark Edwards
<Mark-Edwards@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Let's start out by saying that we are very open here, and not
>(normally) pushy about what is basically just a convention.
>
>However, since most text-based media simulate conversation, it has
>been the practice on Usenet, to post beneath the original text, so
>that people reading the followup will better see the flow of the
>conversation.
>
>Of course, some people complain about having to scroll down through
>the entire original message to see one or two lines of followup.
>
>If the replier (replicant? - grin) either trimmed the original
>message to just the relevant portion, or broke up the original into
>several original/reply sets, it would give a more natural result.
>
>And white space makes it easier to read replies. If a person replies,
>either on top or on bottom, it is hard to see where the original
>begins and the followup begins, if they blend together.
>
>Personally, I feel that the people who insist most loudly about
>"being allowed" to top post, are really arguing about being allowed to
>be lazy: they have something to say, but don't want to take the time
>to format it clearly. It's a lot like saying "I am more important than
>you, and can't be bothered with trivia".
>
>However, there is no law against laziness or top posting. There is no
>requirement that people bottom post. Usenet servers no longer warn
>that "sending this message costs tens of thousands of dollars" when
>you don't snip the original (yes, they really used to do that). There
>is nothing that says you have to present yourself clearly and
>rationally.
>
>If your attempts at communication are too difficult to ferret out,
>or the context of your reply is obscured, it is likely the reply will
>not be read.
>
>
>Hugs and Purrs,
>Mark
Well, here's my $1.02 worth.
I used to always top-post. To me, it just seems silly to have to
scroll down to read the new comments. If I read the original, I can
refer to it again at the bottom if need be, but why scroll all the way
through it again if I've already read it?
We read left to right, not right to left. And it seems to me that
having to read at the bottom is backwards.
But I broke down and (for the most part) follow the bottom-posting
rule (I occasionally break it because I want the person to see my
response immediately at the top, or sometimes, just 'cause I *have* to
be a rebel on occasion ;-) ).
I personally think whatever an individual chooses is okay by me.
Ginger-lyn
not that picky
Home Pages:
http://www.spiritrealm.com/summer/
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/glsummer (homepage & cats)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~summer/index.htm (genealogy)
http://www.movieanimals.bravehost.com/ (The Violence Against
Animals in Movies Website)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Netiquette - a rational view
- From: William Hamblen
- Re: Netiquette - a rational view
- References:
- Netiquette - a rational view
- From: Mark Edwards
- Netiquette - a rational view
- Prev by Date: Re: Yay, hurray! OT
- Next by Date: Re: Pregnant purrs?
- Previous by thread: Re: Netiquette - a rational view
- Next by thread: Re: Netiquette - a rational view
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
