| From: | Lew <lew(at)lwsc(dot)ehost-services(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: top posting |
| Date: | 2007-12-13 07:21:52 |
| Message-ID: | 66ydnUdempcNQP3anZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ron St-Pierre wrote:
> I agree that top-posting can sometimes be easier to read. However, from
> the perspective of someone who *often* searches the archives for answers
> it is usually *much* easier to find a complete problem/solution set when
> the responses are bottom posted and/or interleaved.
The objection people have about a short answer after a long post isn't cured
by top-posting. It's cured by editing the quoted material to provide
appropriate context without letting the length go bad.
Jo: It made the post harder to read.
Mo: Why is it bad?
Jo: Top-posting.
Mo: What was the problem with my post?
--
Lew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2007-12-13 07:24:50 | Re: jdbc lob and postgresql |
| Previous Message | Lew | 2007-12-13 07:18:02 | Re: Hijack! |