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 1E8Thk-00080D-7i for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:12:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7Q29a80008071; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:09:36 GMT Received: from mail.iinet.net.au (mail-08.iinet.net.au [203.59.3.40]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7Q240Bm024155 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:04:01 GMT Received: (qmail 32403 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2005 02:05:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO moriah.localdomain) (203.59.166.20) by mail.iinet.net.au with SMTP; 26 Aug 2005 02:05:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moriah.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B99F2689 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:05:17 +0800 (WST) Received: from moriah.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moriah [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13781-11 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:05:13 +0800 (WST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moriah.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001F0F24FE for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:05:12 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] why gentoo doesn't have long description? From: "W.Kenworthy" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <20050823112654.GA31003@lugmen.org.ar> <430CD9AF.4030204@pbp.net> <430CE320.8020905@gt.rr.com> <200508242145.02046.mcbrides9@comcast.net> <430CF807.9020700@pbp.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:05:11 +0800 Message-Id: <1125021912.1909.24.camel@localhost> 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-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localdomain X-Archives-Salt: 2f14c042-a96f-4673-9829-94fd51903bb2 X-Archives-Hash: 4a91ad98b320e370dff4840235fd95bc For me, bottom posting is not netiquette but a total pitta. It wastes time and effort in reading mail on the mail readers I use. It was originally used by the first text mode readers and seems to be mainly inertia, continued by the design of mainly text based based readers (pine/mutt and the like) for its continued use. With graphical readers like evolution and outlook, who position their cursor at the start of a message, its a real pain. So unless a topic is really interesting, or properly trimmed I solve the problem by "bottom post > /dev/null". Of far more use is intelligent trimming. Far too many people dont correctly trim their mail which keeps both groups happy. If it fits on one screen, there's no reason both groups cant co-exist. Lastly, top/bottom posting is a religion so you are unlikely to change either groups opinion, but just cause angst. flames > /dev/null BillK On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:42 -0400, A. Khattri wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jonathan Nichols wrote: > > > I remember the days of "netiquette." I guess I'm a grizzled old Usenet > > hippie. :| > > No you're not - there's no excuse for not being polite and considerate of > others when posting. And that includes not top-posting and trimming your ... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list