On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:00:21AM +0900, Jeff Pritchard wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:03:16AM +0900, darren kirby wrote:
> > Jargon Wiki (evolving Jargon File)
> > http://ursine.ca/Top-post
> ... or
> >         simply a common-and-garden-variety idiot.
> 
> The real problem here is that there is no general agreement over which 
> is right.  Forum people, like myself, are annoyed by bottom posting 
> (especially with a long quote), and other people are annoyed by top 
> posting.  It's not a matter of ettiquite, since there isn't any global 
> agreement that one way is "good" and the other is "bad".

I think pretty much everybody is annoyed by overly long quotes, no
matter where they are.

David Black asked us to take this off-list if we're going to continue
discussing it.  Considering how off-topic it has gotten, following the
general agreement that on this list at least we should conform to its
guidelines (which means no top-posting), perhaps we should take his
request to heart.

There is one part that is slightly on-topic, though, even if it seems
only to beg to be put to rest:

> 
> It could be solved programatically I suppose.  Just create separate text 
> entry boxes for the quote and the new content, and then place them 
> "backwards" in the email that goes out to the mailing list.

I'm confused.  What do you mean by "backwards"?

If there's something to be solved programmatically, I'm all for it.  On
the other hand, I don't see how that's the case if the mailing list and
newsgroup interfaces "prefer" avoiding top-posting, and a forum would
just look absurd with quotes under original text.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/