:: Re: [DNG] top posting, was: Re: D…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: shraptor
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] top posting, was: Re: Debianising my uploaded version of netman.
I must admit I am really clueless to what is considered good practice in
mailing-lists.
I started coding on abc-80 but I only really know bulletin board style
interaction(same as git, right?) or personal email.
Not everybody was there at the start.

I am lost in mailing-lists but feel like I have something to enrich
devuan namespace anyway.

As a user with roots in Window$ I feel an emotional distrust of local
running email clients.
Using webmail with little thread or mailing-list support right now.

I am not rude on purpose but I truly don't know mailing-list style of
interaction.
Should I delete this or keep this? Write here or write there?
It's like it's only for those initiated in the secret art?
Better to just top-post then, ehhh???????
Better to keep my input to minimum as to not enrage the old authorative
giants, huh!?


Is there no compiler for mailing-list emails?
maybe there should be?

best regards

Scooby





On 2015-12-12 20:46, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Jaromil <jaromil@???> writes:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Gregory Nowak wrote:
>>> I have to throw in my $0.01 here. First, like Edward, I too prefer
>>> top
>>> posting. I have noticed also that top posting seems to be an
>>> overwhelming convention on blindness-related lists. I have seen
>>> instances of bottom posters getting flamed on a blindness-related
>>> list
>>> for doing so.
>>
>> this sounds strange. since its very inception we have struggled to
>> keep
>> Dyne.org infrastructure and practices as friendly as possible for
>> people
>> with low or even no vision, since some of our funding members had such
>> conditions. In my experience bottom posting is fine, as screen readers
>> should be recognizing and signaling the quote prefix '>' and offer to
>> skip over it.
>
> 'Top posting' vs 'bottom posting' is a false dichotomy (could also be
> regarded as strawman): It's really "unredacted full-quote with some
> text
> attached", possibly even "unredacted full-quote of something completely
> unrelated" vs "reply to the text you're replying to and keep enough of
> the context that readers can understand what you are writing
> about". There are also people who put their own text below an
> unredacted
> full-quote but that's not really different from putting it at the top:
> Both are examples of an "can't be bothered to express myself clearly"
> mentality (Reader can figure that out! If not, screw him!).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng