On why bottom posting....

[Linda Walsh]

Warren Young wrote:
> On 5/8/2014 18:47, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>> They don't realize
> 
> Hasty generalization fallacy.  You don't know what they realize.
---
It was a cygwin-talk level generalization... ;-)


> 
>> like most good sources, will put the historical context information
>> at the end in an appendix.
> 
> This is either the no true Scotsman fallacy, or denying the antecedent. 
>  "My AP History teacher made us cite sources like this, therefore people 
> who don't do it that way are wrong."
---
Exactly!... I stand validated!



> Most email is conversation, not essay or article writing.  The only 
> reason we need quotes at all is that the pieces of the conversation are 
> spaced apart in time and space, so we need context to keep the pieces 
> strung together.
----
	I'm answering in conversational style -- Different writers
talking back and forth betwixt each other's writing -- and that's different
than ....

>> they are more likely to lose the reader who is
>> only scanning the first half the page.
> 
> bottom-posting is supposed to go with aggressive quote 
> trimming, so only the pithiest ... [parts are needed]
----
	Well I noted how you trimmed what I said there on purpose and
didn't include the full quote... or... 'what? no recap? how can I
catch up and jump in in the middle?  ;-)
	
> I *have* noticed a lot of emails to the Cygwin lists with the entire 
> prior conversation seemingly quoted, and one or two sentences appended. 
>  If you want to rail against that, I'm right there with you.
----

with 1 line at the bottom?  If they trimmed, I probably wouldn't mind
bottom-quoters... but I have the exact problem they complain about --
I have to scroll through pages of quoted text to find new stuff -- some times
only to find that they did inject a sentence or two in the middle just to
see if I was paying attention while scrolling...

Urk...