Re: Have read the documentation, and am no longer confused

From: Bonj (benjtaylor)
Date: 12/08/04 

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:20:04 -0000

> Please... It's all in your head. I never dressed nothing up as nothing
> no one should do. My words, exactly, were "if you can help it, please
> don't top-post. Thanks" How you get pretending to dress it up as
> something everyone should do, is beyond me.

That's fine then! Really.
I *must* have got the wrong end of the stick - you've put me straight on
where I was wrong, which seems to be that you don't actually *expect*
people to follow your request, you just *would like* it.

It must have been the intention behind the request that puzzled me - I
couldn't see what that was other than to enforce what I thought you must
have perceived to be an MSDN rule. Is it the "if you can help it" that's the
caveat, that should have told me this?

But I am intrigued as to what your ideal aim is by making the request
.....what is the long-term goal of requesting that? (I've noticed you post
it before.)
Is it just to convert everyone to bottom/inline posting, merely by sheer
evangelism ?
Is it to "wake people up" to the fact that top posting is (to you) annoying
and that they don't necessarily know they're doing it?
Or other?

But thanks for the clarification and this (slightly inline, slightly top)
prose part of the post concludes my part of the discussion. And at the end
of the day, it's something of nothing. So to conclude I do apologise if I've
been over-zealous and thank you for the clarification, however the above
question still does remain (more out of curiosity than me having a problem
with it) and I've answered your inlining inline.

> There is no personal attack.
<snip>
> It's a mere expression of hope.
<snip>
> If you took my "perhaps when you grow up" as offensive, I apologize, it
> definitely was _not_ my intent.
<snip>

That's OK, thanks.

> You're obviously in possession of some kind of mind-reading device which
> fails you.

Tell me about it....

> agree with you that top-posting is "wrong" and back you up, giving fuel to
> your argument - but like I say, it IS just opinion, and if people do back
> you up, then it will only prove that they have the same *opinion* as you.

> Yes. Those who don't like top-posting do so for similar reasons as I.
> Those who don't care about other people's opinions do so for similar
> reasons (if any) as you, probably.

But isn't there scope for reasons why people would *prefer* top posting,
rather than just assuming they don't care?

>>(you probably think it's a waste of time to follow netiquette,

Well no, I just have different nettiquette to you.... but as I have said
somewhere else I would like to learn yours as there is obviously something
that is annoying about top-posting that I don't realise. It's just that I've
seen debates before about it so I *know* it's a debatable issue.... I've
seen people getting on their "soapboxes" about why top posting is the way
forward just as much as anything.

>
> Notice how you switched from addressing me to addressing others? That's
> a very strong indication that it's _you_ who's expecting "your fellow"
> top-posters to "jump in" and "back you up". Too bad you can't fight
> your perceived "battles" all by yourself. Just another indicator that
> I am right hoping that some day you'll grow up.

Well, if you do hold hope for me, then that can only be a good thing.
Because you don't know me, so you must think my code's great. :o)

> Even if I posted the so called "definitive guidelines", you would have
> undoubtedly called them opinions and dismissed as everything else. All
> that exists _definitively_ are the laws. Everything else is nothing but
> an opinion, there is no sense in continuing to argue about that.

That was my only reason for "getting on my soapbox" as you call it and
talking 'to the wider audience' rather than talking in the second person,
because I predicted that you would post the contents of a website someone
with an even bigger soapbox had set up to proclaim what they perceived to be
the 'rules'.
But you didn't. So I'm pleasantly surprised.

> I don't like top-posting, I find it disparaging and therefore offensive.

Can you expand on that? I'm only 26 and don't know long words like
"disparaging" when used in this context.
I prefer to read a top post as you can read the 'new' text that has been
added most recently, without having to scroll.
But maybe there is some aspect of top-posting that is annoying that I don't
understand, if that is the case, then I would like to understand it.

> I try to give folks a chance to notice that. That's my opinion (and I am
> not alone, whether anybody decides to join this nonsensical discussion "on
> my side" or not).

I agree that doing a top-post that is the response to one specific one of
many points the previous poster has made, without citing which one it is, is
bad - as it's unclear what part of the message it's the response to. But to
counter that I normally go for a mix of top-posting, and sometimes
majoritively, inline posting. Is this any better?

> It should not be difficult for one to remain what one is, provided one is
> really what one says one is. Aw, ***, it can be seen as slur again,
> can't it? Aw, now I've used profanity... Look what you've done!

Well, I get the 'red mist'. I have cut down on my anger posts though. I did
used to be a full-blown troll, which I'm not proud of, but I do try to take
a deep breath before replying.

> I gave you a chance to educate yourself regarding top-posting. You
> instead decided to take a defensive stance and argue. Who's childish
> in this situation?

Me. I know and accept this. (Whether or not that is my fault is a long
story, over 2 years long in fact now, and is not something I'd go into
here - but for now we'll assume that it *is* my fault. So I'm sorry.)
It isn't necessarily to drill it into me though. There is normally a way
round me, that leads to a confirmation that I understand what you're saying,
or proof that what I'm saying is right, or an apology, or whatever.

> Poor you. due to some unrelated reason (your code not working or what?)

There's no unrelated reason - believe me, the only reason I took offence was
that I'd got it into my head that you were assuming I was a newbie (even
though I relatively am) and "trying to get me to believe that what was
actually your perception was in fact a rule".
Red-mist, and all that. Keyboard-rage, whatever you want to call it. But
believe me, it *is* the text between the "" above that is the only thing I
got the red mist about, and that I now realise to be false - now that you
have explained your motives.
My code's working fine (how's yours?)
However this is only the case when both the size parameters are the same,
i.e. the length of the buffer.
No other part of my code is annoying me, and I only *ever* do C/C++ for
hobbyist purposes, and I don't continue with something I can't do.

> you happen to see every remark as a personal attack or as an attempt to
> "convert" you. You need a drink or a breath of fresh air.

God you're right, I need beer.

>>I don't care. I will state my request to not
>>top post regardless of whether you personally are going to follow them.
>

That's OK. I'd not like to think that you were going to rethink making that
request in future. I'd even go so far as to say.... if some one else
top-posts like me, but *unlike* me believes that your request is an MSDN
rule, then I hope that your request pays off and you can convert them, as
long as they don't mind.
But do you think you'd have to be *that* thick to think that you were trying
to enforce a rule? Maybe no-one is that thick other than me. (It's just the
slight 'vagueness' of it - don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your request
is in any way rude.)

>Please... It's all in your head. I never dressed nothing up as nothing
>no one should do. My words, exactly, were "if you can help it, please
>don't top-post. Thanks" How you get pretending to dress it up as
>something everyone should do, is beyond me.

Well, for example - if someone posted a question that wasn't related to
C/C++ at all, then it's fairly likely someone would reply by telling them to
post to a more appropriate group in future. This *is* telling someone what
they definitively *should* do - attempting to enforce a rule.
I didn't see a difference between that and what you were doing. That led me
to believe that you were enforcing what you perceived to be a rule. However,
now you've explained that you weren't, I've accepted that and I hope that
you *do* read this final post.

>Have a good one, I'm killfiling this thread.

Why, does that help?