<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>Once I was a member of a mailing list that had a very rigid rule formulated in order to save archiving space.: "quotations must not exceed 50% of the new message".</div><div><br></div><div>The unintended consequence of this approach was that people had to write more if they wanted to ensure that quote is given a fair chance of standing by itself; </div><div>or they have to quote less, which promoted off-the-topic follow ups (a.k.a. discussion manipulation). </div><div>Judging from my behavior on that list, I would have to conclude that people did read less of what was written (but they sure did manage to save some archive space).</div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I am in favor of include everything, but with a few considerations:</div><div><br></div><div><i>- Always top-post, and always include complete correspondence up to that time.</i></div><div>- <i>If you want to quote something, extract it from the original (included) text (which will remain intact) and place it as a part of your top-post in order to provide a "closer" reference for your comment.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div>The <i style="font-weight: bold; ">include everything </i>thus formulated could be regarded as a close relative to<b><i> include nothing</i> </b>approach due to the following:</div><div><br></div><div>Let's presume that <i>include noting </i>approach, by definition, contains a top-post entry only.</div><div>Also, presume that in order to comment on a given point, such a point will be extracted from the previous mail and made part of the top-post (therefore, not using in-line commenting method).</div><div><br></div><div>Then, if one is interested in a HEAD (that is, top-post), it wouldn't matter if the TAIL is empty or non-empty list.</div><div><br></div><div>In other words. assuming that NEW_POST may take a form of:</div><div><br></div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">NEW_POST = [TOP_POST]</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'"> </font>or</div><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; ">NEW_POST = [TOP_POST|PREVIOUS_POSTS]</span></div></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'"><br></font></div><div>Then, archive maintenance may be as simple as:</div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">[TOP_POST|_] = NEW_POST,</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">[TOP_POST|ARCHIVE]</font></div><div><br></div><div>V/</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 19 Mar 2015, at 8:58 AM, Bengt Kleberg wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Greetings,<br><br>When advocating top posts as better than inline quotes, one reason mentioned is that it is possible to use inline quotes to manipulate the discussion whereas a top post will keep all quotes un-edited below. Sounds logical.<br>The retort to this argument is that to prevent improper quotations no quotes should be allowed.<br>I can not make the leap from, if keeping all text is better than editing it, then the really large edit of removing all text is even better.<br><br>Someone care to explain the steps?<br><br><br>bengt<br><br>On 03/18/2015 05:10 PM, <a href="mailto:e@bestmx.net">e@bestmx.net</a> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On 03/18/2015 04:32 PM, Joe Armstrong wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I like top posts:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Why:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1) People have short span of attention - they only read the first few<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">lines, then decide<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pardon me,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">do you seriously assume that people have only sequential access to a text?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I know for a fact that people<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">follow links near the top of my<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">blogs and not near the end - the stuffs so boring they don't get to the end.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">very good filter for those who are not interested in a productive conversation<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2) Interleaving replies with previously posted text often results in a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mess where it's impossible<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cooking often results in a mess.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">repair often results in a mess.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">publishing books often results in a mess.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">programming often results in a mess.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to see who said what, especially if their are multiple interleaving. I<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have recently heard of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">deliberate manipulation of previously published text, in attempt to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">manipulate a discussion.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ok,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in order to prevent improper quotations let's just omit all quotation at once!<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">good riddance!<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">i also suggest to forbid all tools that might be misused.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> Separately posted articles makes it clear who said what<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">leaving totally unclear WHY did they say that.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3) Top postings aren't really at the top - the subject line in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mail is at the top.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">no.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"Return-Path:" line is on the top.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4) The topmost posting is often the most interesting and an indication<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that a topic is worth of a discussion.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it is so incomprehensible and ridiculous claim that i just decided to quote it as is.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">erlang-questions mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>erlang-questions mailing list<br><a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>