From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E82qf-0006Ei-Nn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:31:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7OLSsc1000254; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:28:54 GMT Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7OLMSjp022386 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:22:28 GMT Received: from mail.joat.com ([71.114.133.129]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0ILQ009KBWQX50G1@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:23:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (cornholio.joat.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.joat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BB64898 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.joat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cornholio [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11397-05 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cdnebinge (jnet.state.pa.us [206.224.31.162]) by mail.joat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:36 -0400 From: "Dave Nebinger" Subject: RE: [gentoo-user] why gentoo doesn't have long description? In-reply-to: <430CE320.8020905@gt.rr.com> To: Message-id: <005501c5a8f2$3bdae380$3a01010a@jnetlab.lcl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Importance:X-Virus-Scanned; b=okz4DLEZsVV16kifvANdftEbml3UvUbHKBy1Fv7sqUsD7Ad5UjJg6A2Y5WMo69t1MRvEOUi4WqSGWFRSeHlBIhis1kC/gtV2faOJo9KBnf6N53336HJX4Nc8lJyLleBO4YXJL2fJLnSJ9XNDwKSgMO6DRO9TCcq6a12gwlTn8HU=; c=nofws; d=joat.com; q=dns; s=selector1 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.2 (20050629) at joat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j7OLMSjp022386 X-Archives-Salt: bd87c7dd-7110-45a8-a674-8c353c85e913 X-Archives-Hash: 51207e4a3df0d65856a2ab7f01093cf3 > As a matter of curiosity, why is top posting considered bad form. I'm > using Thunderbird and when it views the mail, by default it is at the > top. With bottom posting, I have to scroll down to view the post. Because we don't read from bottom up, we read from top down. For example, this comment by itself makes no sense (are we talking about how we read, etc.). The context of the previous post is needed to understand the context of the reply. Top posting means that you, as a reader, will need to scroll back and forth in order to understand what the context of the original post and the reply are. And things get even worse if you top post a reply that deals with part (but not all) of the original post; contextually it is sometimes difficult to determine which part of the original post the reply is intended for. This is why many of us will embed replies within the originally quoted text to ensure that the context of both the original post and the response are clear. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list