Google Kreme wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006, at 10:23 , Gerard Seibert wrote:
all you have to do is complain about a harmless sig.
I think he was complaining about the excessive quoting, coupled with
the off-topic post, coupled with the annoyingly long signature.
Anyone of those would have slid by. Probably any two. But all three
tipped the balance.
While I agree with the sentiments of the 4 line 'content' of your
sig, your snedmail made it obvious that you don't understand that the
opposite of top-posting is not bottom-posting, which is nearly as bad.
The opposite of top-posting (top-posting is simply replying without
thinking) is trimming the quoted text to the minimum needed to
maintain the thread (see how I did that?), and then interspersing
your comments. When there is only one comment, it LOOKS like bottom
posting, but it is not.
First, I rarely trim any post that does not exceed one screen full of
Second, I felt that the post was relevant
Third, talk about useless garbage. You start off this post with useless
information regarding the time and date of my post. If anyone was really
interested in that garbage, they could simply check the message headers.
If a users MUA is configured to color code different levels of posting,
then in-line replying is certainly acceptable. Otherwise, all too often
the reply might very well get missed by the message recipient. However, if
the message being replied to requires multiple in-line comments, there
exists the very real probability that the original poster did not define
his inquiry sufficient to one or at most two (really should be two
separate posts) in the first place.
Finally, I give very little if any credence to anyone who fails to use his
real name. Somehow I doubt that your name is "Google Kreme".
What passes for optimism is most often the effect of an intellectual error.
Raymond Aron, "The Opium of the Intellectuals"
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/