<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Apr 30, 2013 12:01 PM, "Ottavio Caruso" <<a href="mailto:ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com">ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<p dir="ltr">> At the end of the day this is your home and if you don't want any such<br>
> messages I respect that. However before we call all top posters stupid<br>
> or lazy, I beg to express my opinion, which is as follows.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anybody called top posters stupid. "Lazy" is a gray area - I'm the laziest man alive, but I will spend the additional 2 minutes of formatting on my phone to avoid disrespecting the list and causing everybody unnecessary inconvenience. Guess I wouldn't call top-posters lazy. I'll assume they're uninformed, state the arguments for bottom-posting, and if they continue top-posting, I would say they're disrespectful :-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I used to be a "taliban" of "no top posting" and other old school Unix<br>
> orthodoxy. Then I bought a 4.2'' mobile, and suddenly the world looks<br>
> different. I expect the participants to this list to agree with me<br>
> that by today's standards a Smartphone is pretty much _the_ computer.</p>
<p dir="ltr">No, it is one of the possible devices - I use it very often in read only mode and for the occasional reply. But you're just punishing yourself if you use it for more than 15 minutes of text editing. I know I'm currently itching to type this on a decent input device :-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">> When you view and organize your email on a mobile the text is wrapped<br>
> in a completely different way from the PC would do. Top or bottom<br>
> posting don't make much sense.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I work around the horrible wrapping I'm currently experiencing by rotating the phone sideways, so it can fit 80 characters in a line. Either way, I don't see how wrapping is related to top/bottom posting. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And for me top posting is even more painful on the mobile - I have to scroll around more on this damn screen to figure out what Ken is replying to.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I am able to use bottom posting natively here on my PC but I wouldn't<br>
> be able to do that on the Gmail app on my Samsung. By default it<br>
> doesn't even append the original text.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Strange. I'm replying via the Gmail app on a Samsung phone, and the "Quote text" checkbox is on by default.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> You also have the "Respond inline" option which is would theoretically<br>
> render the text in standard format, but it's a pain to edit text if<br>
> the text itself is long (if you have a mobile try this).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Currently doing this. It's a *bit* of a pain, but so is every text manipulation operation on a touchscreen device with a sub-5 inch display, considering the average human thimb size :-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">> To the modern mobile user these are the possible strategies with<br>
> regards to technical mailing lists:<br>
><br>
> 1) Throw away your mobile because it doesn't fit 1991 netiquette<br>
> (hardly common sense)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Nonsense, no need to go ad absurdum here :-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 2) Read your email on your mobile but make a bookmarks to yourself and<br>
> answer on your PC at night, when your brain is probably cooked</p>
<p dir="ltr">You can write the draft on your mobile immediately (thinking up the text being the the brain-demanding task), and make it decent and send it in the evening - i.e. the cut/copy/paste tasks are not mentally demanding, so you can do those when your brain is cooked.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> 3) Use the above mentioned "Respond inline" option but be prepared to<br>
> give up sanity when editing your post.<br>
> last but not least, my favourite:<br>
> 4) Do not include original text (if it's too long) but include<br>
> meaningful references to the nature of the discussion to prevent<br>
> readers from frying their brains. This is common sense. You can't<br>
> expect to reply to a message with a one liner like "Oh yes, I like<br>
> that too.". What were you talking about?<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">I think you've just improved my reply workflow - method 3 is actually less work for me if I want to reply to multiple points from the original message, but I hadn't thought of method 4 for when I want to adress only 1-2 of the original points.</p>