[Asterisk-Users] Re: Top posting - are we there yet?

[Steven Critchfield]

On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 11:12 -0600, Jay Milk wrote:
> Apparently, no child was left behind... That's why we can find a lot of
> them here.  
> 
> My point was, should you have missed it, that I personally don't care
> what your posting preference is.  I know what mine is, but I'm willing
> to work around yours and scroll more than I would think is necessary.  I
> also don't care that you put YOUR money where your mouth is -- more
> power to you for conviction.  

> I'm a fairly reasonable person, and I have yet to see one good argument
> (and quoting netiquette is not on argument, that's opinion) for
> bottom-posting.  To me, it is terribly inefficient and wastes time,
> especially when you hide your post between the original message and some
> ludicrously elaborate signature.  Top-posting, to me, is more logical,
> as it presents the answer in a prominent position.  And inline-posting
> makes sense when you're responding to multiple questions or points in an
> email...

But you are under the sometimes false assumption that your answer is a)
good for just that instance of the question, b) The proper answer
without needing further discussion.

If your answer is a one off and you are willing to repeat that answer
every time question X comes up, then fine, you waste all of our time and
bandwidth. Else you answer in a manner to wich someone looking in the
archives can follow from the question to the answer and see if it
applies. Remember your answer will probably still apply in 1-2 years.

If your answer isn't complete or accurate, top posting will have screwed
up formatting for someone coming in later to correct or fill in details.
Again, in a year or more when someone is actually using the achive to
find the answer, they will have to sort through a mess of crappy
formatting. 

Ettiquete in the way you format your messages is right up there with the
the same ettiquete you are supposed to show when driving next to someone
on the road. If you are a good driver and willing to make room for
someone to merge, all are happy. If you bunch up and push someone out of
line, you degrade traffic patterns and depending on volume, it all backs
up to being less than usable for a while. Mailing list etiquette was
derivied from many people testing ideas out and coming to a good idea of
how best to procede. Same thing with how to drive. Get over it and learn
not to be the grease stain.

> That said, I don't mind digging through what I consider a compost-heap
> of thoughts and find the answer I'm looking for.  And I won't blast
> anyone for posting in that manner, because I understand that this is a
> matter of preference.  I'm convinced that those who favor bottom-posting
> do so because to them, the advantages of bottom-posting are just as
> clear as the advantages of top-posting are to me and many others.
> Neither "side" will convince the other, it's just like politics.

No it isn't like politics. Maybe close, but not the same. Politics
entangles MANY issues. top/bottom/inline posting only entails a small
handful of ideas. This is something than can be layed out on a T graph
of pros and cons and then weighted appropriately and a best practice
derived from that knowlege.

> And just like in politics, disagreements aren't the problem; the
> problems arise when you personalize the attack (as, to my shame, I've
> done as well), marginalize your opponent, and worst yet, stop
> communicating entirely because of one issue.  Top-Posters and
> Bottom-Posters are equal contributors to this mailing list.  I found
> many good answers in bottom-posted messages, and I know from personal
> correspondence that I helped out a few folks with my top-posted messages
> as well.

Funny how the world works in such a way that if you can't speak a
language I understand, communication ceases. If you type in a font too
small for me to easily read, you choose for me not to communicate with
you. If you choose to make it difficult to bother with you, you choose
to stop the communications. I may be the one who actually starts to
ignore you, but you are the one who would put yourself in the position
for that to happen. Much like a murderer chooses to limit his mobility,
your actions determine wether or not you will be responded too.

> So, could we just agree to read around our idiosyncrasies and go back to
> paying attention to the CONTENT of a message, not its FORMAT?
> Discarding messages because they're in the wrong format is equal to
> discriminating against another human being based on outward appearance;
> be it skin-color, religion,  nationality, disability, or -- as often
> found among engineers -- inability to match shoes and belt.  In short,
> it's ridiculous and utterly inappropriate.

Nope, I will not put content before format when format requires me to
take extra steps to devine what it is I am supposed to be getting out of
the content. There just is a simple value curve where your content is
only worth a certain amount of effort to get at it. As soon as it looks
like I will fall on the wrong side of the curve, your message regardless
of content is dropped. You will find that to be true in a number of real
world situations. If your advertisement makes me work hard to read, I
probably will ignore it. If your store sign is indistingishable from the
rest of the noise around it, I won't notice it. If your front entrance
is too difficult to locate, I won't enter your store. If a resume is
poorly formatted, it gets trashed. If your license plate on your vehicle
isn't properly displayed, you will get pulled over and ticketed. 

Life is full of rules like that, get used to the fact that you are
prejudged many times and probably written off before you actually had a
chance to present any content. I understand it very well. I consider it
a wonderful statement about my value when as a guy with long hair and a
beard, I am choosen for the content I possess over the presentation of
myself. But I do also understand that it took quite a bit more content
to make it worth it to the person doing the choosing than any clean cut
person.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Critchfield [mailto:critch at basesys.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:09 AM
> > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Top posting
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 09:53 -0600, Jay Milk wrote:
> > > So, that's how my tax dollars are spent?  Outrageous, and certainly 
> > > news-worthy.  Good luck fighting off CNN and the like when 
> > this leaks 
> > > out.
> > 
> > It is covered under the No Child Left Behind program under 
> > continueing reinforcement of what should have been learned 
> > before joining a network.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>