X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49A4786A.2060301@benjammin.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:44:58 -0600
From: Ben Kamen <bkamen AT benjammin DOT net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [CFT] libtool on nix->cygwin cross, with wine
References: <announce DOT 49A35E97 DOT 5090808 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> 	 <49A37F05 DOT 8050900 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> 	 <20090224123655 DOT dd559d60 DOT Rhubbell AT iHubbell DOT com> 	 <49A46366 DOT 5050605 AT sbcglobal DOT net> 	 <20090224133507 DOT 543ed1cf DOT Rhubbell AT iHubbell DOT com> <87f94c370902241433h7701dae1lc652feb0abae8eae AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <87f94c370902241433h7701dae1lc652feb0abae8eae@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com



Greg Freemyer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:35 PM, rhubbell <Rhubbell AT ihubbell DOT com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:15:33 -0500
>> Greg Chicares wrote:
>>> By the way, this list discourages full quoting:
>>>   http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU
>> Ok, this is one neurotic list.
> 
> A lot of Linux mailing lists have that policy.  Especially if it is
> high volume or has a large subscriber base.  The idea is that someone
> can read a single email and understand it without having to bounce all
> over the place.

What still always makes me laugh is the people who are so emphatic about top vs. bottom posting.

(someone even had a clever .sig showing the flow of top posting and how "backwards" it is)

But honestly, we humans have remarkable brains that let us put back together the conversation in either order.
Is it really *that* hard? Maybe for some.

But what made me laugh about the .sig was that it missed something.

it said something along the idea of:

Because it just does.
Why.
Yes.
So, does that make it evil?
because it reverses the flow of discussion.
why is top posting evil?

But what makes me laugh is that people on a list have now just received a sequence of messages in the correct flow with the 
most current information at the top without the need for scrolling through redundant previous message info just to "get to the goods"
at the bottom.

Personally (and this is the important part), I don't let it bother *me* because I realize everyone's brain works a little differently.

Speaking of which.. http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html

Sorry for my ramble. I'll go hide now.

 -Ben

-- 
Ben Kamen - O.D.T., S.P.
=============================================================================
Email: bkamen AT benjammin DOT net              Web: http://www.benjammin.net

As seen somewhere on the net: My other computer is your Windows Server.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/