On why bottom posting....
Fri May 9 19:44:00 GMT 2014
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
>> 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...
More information about the Cygwin-talk