Subject: (urth) Top Posting Makes The Theoanthropos Cry

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:22:49 +0000

People (I won't embarass Bob, Iorwerth, Dan'l, or Matthew by mentioning 
their names),

Please lay off the top-posting; it makes your posts very hard to follow. 
Even if your mail program puts your cursor at the top of the quoted 
material to which you are replying, there is nothing to stop you from 
moving to the bottom before beginning to type in your received wisdom, 
and following the conventional flow of reading down columns of English 
eases the reader's eye.

You can read more about it here:
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html

Thanks,
Jeff

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:03:31 +0000

Jeff,

I top-post, as a general rule, only when I don't think there's
a need for interleaving (an ugly word; I coined the word
"coinscription" to describe the way we write inside each
others' texts in email/mailing lists, and will take this
oppty to plug it). As a general rule, I try to write such notes
so that no context is required and cut the original out
completely -- as here; but sometimes I forget to cut it.

And sometimes, considering that, due to the vagiaries
of  mailing programs and such, some may see the reply
before the original, I'll deliberately leave the original
below to provide that context. But it's usually just a mistake
(forgetting or laziness), since I believe that the coinscriptive
style is causing many people to forget how to write a
coherent reply without coinscribing.

I'll try to be better about it.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.
However, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the
characters." -- Stephen R. Donaldson

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:21:22 +0000

> coherent reply without coinscribing.

When would people *need* to write a coherent reply without coinscribing 
or interleaving, or just plain bottom posting like I'm doing now?

---

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:38:06 +0000

I, for one, find top posting to be preferable in many cases.  Especially 
when a response is more general in nature as opposed to point by point.  I 
find it annoying to have to re-read (or skip over) paragraphs of stuff I've 
already read in previous posts just to get to the content of the current 
post.

-bsharp

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:47:30 +0000

I generally don't find top-posting hard to follow (yes, I'm doing this on 
purpose), especially on a relatively low-volume list where the post that's 
being responded to is fairly recognizable. I save interleaving for posts 
that have individual points that need to be addressed separately. To 
interleave on a post like this, for example, I would have to sit there and 
selectively prune out the text that wasn't directly relevant to my response; 
this can sometimes lead to a pretty confusing, mangled post. On the other 
hand if you don't prune you end up with two pages of quoted text with a 
single-sentence response at the bottom that can be easily mistaken for a sig 
- posts like that usually go in the trash bin without being read.

>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:49:03 +0000

You're using an interesting new sig, Dan'l.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:52:00 +0000

On 8/27/06, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote:

> When would people *need* to write a coherent reply without
> coinscribing or interleaving, or just plain bottom posting like I'm
> doing now?

When writing real letters on paper. It's something of an art that I
don't want to vanish from our culture.

(And,  see, I _do_ bottom-post when it makes sense to do so!)

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:52:29 +0000

> You're using an interesting new sig, Dan'l.

Thank you.

---

From: Iorwerth Thomas <iorweththomas at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:19:56 +0000

>From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>

>Please lay off the top-posting....

Ah.  Oops.  Normally I'm more careful.  Will do better.

Iorwerth

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:11:19 +0000

> (And,  see, I _do_ bottom-post when it makes sense to do so!)

As a counterexample, top-posting has apparently addled one poster here 
to the point where he replies to my post as if you wrote it, 
complimenting you on a sig that it does not contain!

---

From: maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:07:32 +0000

> completely -- as here; but sometimes I forget to cut it.
....
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant

Personally, I rather like the term "interleaving". To me, it makes it
sound as if our conversations are collaboratively authoring a book,
each page of which is a section.

~maru

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:37:30 +0000

> each page of which is a section.

Whereas I get twitchy when I hear or read the word "author" used as
a verb...

---

From: JWillard <aldenweer at charter.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:19:57 +0000

>Whereas I get twitchy when I hear or read the word "author" used as
Why?  It's in the OED.  Have we stumbled upon a concern lexicological, 
Barthesian, or other?  Your ellipsis is practically tapping its toes out 
of impatience to explain itself...

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:57:04 +0000

On 8/31/06, JWillard <aldenweer at charter.net> wrote:
> Why?  It's in the OED.

So are "D'oh!" and "Bling-bling." I'm a bit of a lexicological
conservative, and don't like the use of a noun as a verb, at
least where there's a perfectly good and commonly known
verb ("write") that can do the job quite well.

> Have we stumbled upon a concern lexicological,

Eh? It was intended as a mark of self-deprecation, that's
all. The voice trailing off, somewhat embarrassed.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
http://www.danehyoakes.com
I've got a piece of braaaaain lodge in me heeead!!!

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:58:50 +0000

> Whereas I get twitchy when I hear or read the word "author" used as

So nu?

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:00:56 +0000

> all. The voice trailing off, somewhat embarrassed.

At least you are embarrassed.

That's a good first step.

With practice, you may reach the point where you have no need to be
embarrassed.

.

---

From: Transentient <transentient at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:20:49 +0000

> verb ("write") that can do the job quite well.

Move to France. :) France has a language academy that officially  
decides what is and is not French. If a foreign word becomes overly  
popular, they come up with a Frencher word to replace it.

English is as it is used, unfortunately, by any people who use it, no  
matter their level of education or sophistication.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:31:43 +0000

> popular, they come up with a Frencher word to replace it.

Yes, but they don't speak English very well there. My problem is
not a generic love of grammar for its own sake but a deep love
of the English language.

> matter their level of education or sophistication.

This is undeniably true. Nor am I a complete grammar crank who
shudders at a split infinitive or a well-used dangling modifier. But
I think changes that weaken the language ought to be resisted, and
"author" as a verb weakens the language. I'm not going to give a
detailed explanation of why I think so -- this is still a list for discussing
the works of Gene Wolfe, last I looked, and not a grammarian's
alcove -- but I'll say that I can't imagine a case in which the shorter,
more direct "write" isn't better. "Never use two syllables when one
will do,"

Also: the Anglo-saxon word is almost always more powerful in
English than the Latinate. (Which is why I try not to refer to Wolfe,
or any other writer, as an "author.")