On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen <s.jansen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt <codered12@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, yet consistently brought up topic.

I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone points out to someone that top posting is bad.

I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is still the same.

I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or simply don't know what's wrong.

Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there should be a better way out.

I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these links or similar in their signatures.

http://idallen.com/topposting.html

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting it as the topic in the irc channel also.

I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread.

PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some netiquette.

Perhaps you could do something more useful with your time. For example, you could write chromium browser plugin that forces bottom-posting in gmail...

Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic bottom posting feature. Seriously...

On Dec 16, 2011 9:06 AM, "Kazuo Teramoto" <kaz.rag@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-16T01:21:22, Calvin Morrison wrote:

...

Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a

automatic

...

bottom posting feature.

I don't think this is a solution.

Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is about *reading* and *thinking* about the reply and not *automatic* replying to a message.

I did top posting sometimes because gmail.com on my low end phone's opera mini browser didn't allow me to reply inline. All this has changed now since I got an Android smartphone.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Alex Liu <rnkn22@gmail.com> wrote:

However, there exists a bottom posting script for Greasemonkey if you want to check that out. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/35866 An according lab feature has been suggested some time ago in the Gmail group, but as of no there has been no reply by one of the Gmail team members.

i'm not sure how the script works. i went to the link you gave and hit the install button. i closed all chromium instances and opened the browser again. still, bottom posting is not automatic.

-----Original Message----- From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21 To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen <s.jansen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt <codered12@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, yet consistently brought up topic.

I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone points out to someone that top posting is bad.

I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is still the same.

I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or simply don't know what's wrong.

Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there should be a better way out.

I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these links or similar in their signatures.

http://idallen.com/topposting.html

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting it as the topic in the irc channel also.

I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread.

PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some netiquette.

Perhaps you could do something more useful with your time. For example, you could write chromium browser plugin that forces bottom-posting in gmail...

Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic bottom posting feature. Seriously... +++ Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom posting and plain text, but not only my provider's M$ thingy doesn't mark the original message with signs for the quote and there's no option to use plain text. Today it's very common to write HTML and to answer above the original message. This odd behaviour might have one advantage. People doing top posting perhaps read the complete mail, before they reply, while answering under the quotes very often means reading a sentence, then to answer, reading the next sentence and to answer this etc., hence the context could get lost, this could lead to misconceptions and those could lead to flame wars. I'm from the Ruhrgebiet, here we don't care much about netiquette. Do we really need rules and rules and rules? +1 for bottom posting but I'm completely against instructing people not to post as it's common on business correspondence. We are the freaks. Today nearly everybody is using HTML and top posting at least in Germany is what averaged people do. - Ralf

-----Original Message----- From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 05:03 I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know is why is this the common practice. [snip] +++ I can explain the reason why :p. In the office they file that way. Old sheets are under new sheets. It's convenient since you don't need to change all the papers, just to file another sheet. For emails it of cause is better to do it vice versa, but the majority doesn't work scientific/creative, so the better style has no advantage for those people. For them it's easier to do the same thing on the computer, as they do for 'real' folder.

On 16/12/2011, at 06:19, Rafa Griman <rafagriman@gmail.com> wrote:

There are other reasons I've seen: - people that use "smart" phones have a limited screen size and it's "easier" to top post. - from a behavioural point of view, people follow these steps: 1.- read the whole mail 2.- hit the reply button 3.- reply the e-mail (top posting, ofcourse ;) 4.- don't give a heck if it answers everything, if they forgot something, if they misunderstood something, ... - not knowing that top posting is not "correct" or "accepted" - people know, but don't care

Rafa

yoou sai it all I use an ipad and it is pain to edit the email..

When in a private correspondence, regardless of the number of participants, the context is probably known and thus there is no need to read previous replies. I would reply like this, because I only care about what you and I are talking about at this point of time - there is no need for any reference. If I do feel like quoting something, I may look below. Since the importance of the previous replies are not high in this scenario, they are at the bottom, out of view. On 16 December 2011 12:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. <jeffrey.parke@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post.

But I may be concerned about one particular message or sentence or paragraph or word, and in that case I may choose to highlight the relevant extract like this. In a high-traffic medium such as a mailing list, there is no prior knowledge of context or content. As such, replying like this makes the most sense and follows the flow of conversation. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense <rodbzro@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote:

...

I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know is why is this the common practice. Obviously, people on forums and mailing lists like everything in the top down, first to last format. This frustrates me. I'll have to look into that greasemonkey plugin.. I am always fighting gmail on this issue.

I believe top posting is common because [average] people don't use e-mails to write/read long texts anymore, but rather for chatting.

Actually, nowadays it seems natural that if there is a way people can chat through some text message system, they will. I've unfollowed a lot of people who apparently thought twitter was just another web messenger.

this topic is a sinkhole, but what you've stated is an individual's failure to recognize social context, and adjust behavior accordingly. i mean, people don't act the same way with their own family vs. meeting their partners for the first time, do they? or their close personal friends vs. new business acquaintances? or when traveling abroad? or on a first date? or <insert almost any situation>? ... no, they don't. the internet allows for obscene levels of anonymity that simply *cannot* exist in traditional/direct communication -- permitting illusions of zero responsibility, fault, repercussion, embarrassment, or humiliation for their activities and escapades -- and is why trolls and all other forms of internet garbage exist. entering a community without competently researching and gratuitously accepting their established customs/preferences is completely asinine; entering that community and publicly smearing said customs, followed by proclamations of your own, is pompously asinine. it's not uncommon for me to spend hours on a reply/question, occasionally approaching 4hrs or more, and sometimes spread over several days, as i aim to be as clear, complete, and useful as possible to the greatest number of people, on *either* side. anyone who does not read to learn and write to teach is > /dev/null. -- C Anthony

On 12/16/2011 04:59, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

...

i mean, people don't act the same way with their own family vs. the internet allows for obscene levels of anonymity that simply *cannot* exist in traditional/direct communication

We are humans so it's not bad if we misbehave, act like trolls etc.. Sometimes I have to misbehave, act like a troll etc., BUT I welcome that on Linux mailing lists it's common to do this using the real name. Way of behaving is not to fake an identity. The Internet anonymity is grotesque, it's like talking to a chatbot like ELIZA (Weizenbaum is one of my idols :). Did you note that most Linux users use their real names :)? This is more important for me than thinking about top and bottom posting rules. Cheers! Ralf

[2011-12-16 04:47:14 +0100] Ralf Mardorf:

Do we really need rules and rules and rules?

We don't. But it's not just about you writing messages the way you want: it's about other people being able to read them conveniently, especially you expect them to consider the points you are making or questions you are asking. These guidelines: http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html should be common sense to everyone; when you email looks like garbage and is hard to read, don't be surprised that it pisses people off.

Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use my providers M$ thingy.

And that is terrible: I have to spend time figuring out what parts of your messages are new in the discussion... So don't be surprised if in the near future I stop reading your messages altogether. -- Gaetan

Ralf Mardorf (2011-12-16 04:47):

-----Original Message----- From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21 To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited

Your "M$ thingy" is kind of verbose ^^^.

Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic bottom posting feature.

Seriously...

+++

Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom posting and plain text, but not only my provider's M$ thingy doesn't mark the original message with signs for the quote and there's no option to use plain text. Today it's very common to write HTML and to answer above the original message.

This odd behaviour might have one advantage. People doing top posting perhaps read the complete mail, before they reply, while answering under the quotes very often means reading a sentence, then to answer, reading the next sentence and to answer this etc., hence the context could get lost, this could lead to misconceptions and those could lead to flame wars.

I'm from the Ruhrgebiet, here we don't care much about netiquette. Do we really need rules and rules and rules?

+1 for bottom posting but I'm completely against instructing people not to post as it's common on business correspondence.

We are the freaks. Today nearly everybody is using HTML and top posting at least in Germany is what averaged people do.

I have tried reading some of your messages in the last days, but it was too difficult to understand who you are talking with, what you are replying to and what do multiple lines of "+++" mean. Thought I'd simply ignore them, but since this is kind of on topic... -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:33 +0200, Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote:

[snip] I have tried reading some of your messages in the last days, but it was too difficult to understand who you are talking with, what you are replying to and what do multiple lines of "+++" mean. Thought I'd simply ignore them, but since this is kind of on topic... [snip]

Hi Rogutės :) I'm still uncertain how to handle incoming mails in the future, but I guess it might be better if I use a Linux MUA instead of the providers M§ thingy. Pardon, I've got a cold, so I'm slow at the moment. I'm using Evolution now and keep the mails on the server. Sorry again, Ralf

On 16-12-11 12:24, Jude DaShiell wrote: [ bottom posting, nettiquette ]

The creators of the original email protocol could have if they chose put together an rfc on top posting and writers of email programs could have written software in such a way that top posting became impossible. None of that happened to the best of my knowledge. Why?

Actually, the netiquette *is* an RFC(1855), top posting is mentioned in 3.1.1: <quote> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original! </quote> mvg, Guus

On 2011-12-16 at 11:16 +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:

I agree.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

...

(...)

My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.

Agreeing to unsubscribing top posters by top posting yourself. I'm not sure if this was intended or not. :D

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:20:42PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:

And your email has changed the world and we will not see a repeat of this in the future. Hooray!

My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.

I am in support for this action. Besides this adds an additional "feature" to the mailing list. Once one is tired of a mailing list, instead of unsubscribing via normal ways just sent a top posted reply to the next email from the list :-) (Granted using this feature can be a disaster in certain mailing lists --- for some unexplained reason OpenBSD lists comes in my mind first) ppk

Kevin Chadwick (2011-12-16 11:20):

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0530 Piyush P Kurur wrote:

...

I am in support for this action. Besides this adds an additional "feature" to the mailing list. Once one is tired of a mailing list, instead of unsubscribing via normal ways just sent a top posted reply to the next email from the list :-)

(Granted using this feature can be a disaster in certain mailing lists --- for some unexplained reason OpenBSD lists comes in my mind first)

That's rediculous everyone should be free to post and free to choose what they send to a killfile. You could add a per user related killfile mechanism to the mailing list. That way the sender doesn't know he gets limited response for a reason and won't just use a different email, but I feel less strongly and think it's not worth the effort?

Remember how others wrote that bottom posting forces us to contemplate on the quoted parts? I don't know if you did, but I don't understand what you are saying and, incidentally, you forgot to quote Alan's statement, without which Piyush's reply is obscure. -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 15:33 +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

[snip] If you ban someone they soon realise and could use a different email. [snip]

+1 If somebody does something bad, friendly [off-list] explain this person that (s)he might should reconsider the style. If this person ignore your inquiry simply use a spam filter. OT: If you like bad taste humor: Google for "Guttenberg" and "a safe Internet". This man is a liar who get money for knowledge everybody had before he get this knowledge. He tries to whitewash himself from plagiarize, by plagiarizing again.

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:01 -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:

On 16 December 2011 10:59, Ralf Madorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:

...

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 15:33 +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

...

[snip] If you ban someone they soon realise and could use a different email. [snip]

+1

If somebody does something bad, friendly [off-list] explain this person that (s)he might should reconsider the style. If this person ignore your inquiry simply use a spam filter.

OT: If you like bad taste humor: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/D112

Google for "Guttenberg" and "a safe Internet". This man is a liar who get money for knowledge everybody had before he get this knowledge. He tries to whitewash himself from plagiarize, by plagiarizing again.

<insert generic conspiracy about founding fathers and the illuminati>

:D Regarding to this thread I try to be quiet now ... I've got no choice, since the invaders from Mars force me to be quiet now.

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 16:59 +0100, Ralf Madorf wrote:

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 15:33 +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

...

[snip] If you ban someone they soon realise and could use a different email. [snip]

+1

If somebody does something bad, friendly [off-list] explain this person that (s)he might should reconsider the style. If this person ignore your inquiry simply use a spam filter.

So, after today, anybody who top-posts will get flooded with private emails pointing it out? Maybe that would work... == John K Pate http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0930006/ -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:51 +0100, G. Schlisio wrote:

Am 16.12.2011 11:20, schrieb Allan McRae:

...

On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:

[snip] My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.

Allan

really not helping anyone. i personally prefer top posting, but there are some points raised for bottom posting i never thought about before. for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering discussion on the topic. so if i dont know about 'bottom positng policy' onthis mailinglist, i'll be kicked right out? man, i cant think of something more stupid…

Scrolling could become an issue if some people do top and other people do bottom posting. Plus somebody like me should use a M$ thingy of his provider and confuse people with "+++" marks since the thingy doesn't quote. I'm also against hard rules, but for mailing lists IMO it's good to post bottom, to use plain text only, to avoid notes similar to ^^^^^^^ since ^^^^^^^ on braille makes no sense. One of the bad things using HTML are the fonts. IIRC there's a M$ font where "J" is a smiley. Cheers! Ralf

Am 16.12.2011 15:41, schrieb Gaetan Bisson:

[2011-12-16 14:51:43 +0100] G. Schlisio:

...

for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering discussion on the topic. Did you see the movie "Memento"?

...

man, i cant think of something more stupid… Well, do you think your signature is smart?

...

user@home:~ $ :(){:|:&};: both: nope, whats your point?

Hi, * On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr> wrote:

Hi,

The 16/12/11, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:

...

I am all for bottom posting if it helps the reader of my mail. But,

...

* For instance, I use t-prot to fold the reply, so that I don't have keep scrolling to read the reply I already know (because mails are threaded), but I may be outside or using something which doesn't fold as well as this, in those circumstances top posting helps.

Quoting the whole mail like you did is as crappy as top-posting. This is exactly what makes everybody scroll.

So what do you think fits better -- inline replies as you did ? I use inline replies too given the circumstances. However, to avoid scrolling you can try using t-prot for folding. While replying, vim also folds my messages. In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines; however I would also like to add as to how do you decide how much context to retain in a non-inline reply -- too less will mean no context at all and too much may mean some readers complain. Since you seem to be so miffed by my whole mail quote, how would you feel in a mail thread with 5-10 previous mail contexts (even if they are small) ?

...

* Regarding the context that people seem to be so enthusiastically ebullient about (even on the links you posted), tell me how much of context do you see in mails of today ? 1 ? 2 ? I followed this whole thread and I don't see more than that. Do you know why ?

Art of quoting is *not* a matter of context level. It's about direct relevance of your own answer.

...

I don't think this top or bottom posting matters to me for I use a sane client.

But you keep whole-quoting which is silly. No MUA can help for that.

Of course you can. See my answer above/bottom on how to configure. I imagine you or someone alike scrolling the whole mail to answer, no wonder you are so unhappy about the 'whole' posting thing.

...

But what matters to me most is a post and bunch of morons (not your fault) replying stating people to be forcefully unsubscribed and/or rebuked if they top post.

People who don't know how to work with mails need education. Once done, if they don't want to conform, it's pretty normal to ban them.

Go ahead, I can't argue any further, spread your education; whatever floats your boat.

...

I understand that people should bottom post but to enforce it won't be that easy; though you can write script to process your incoming mails and make all bottom posted, shouldnt be hard with procmail (given that all use markers when replying).

This is the worst. Banning means we are free to not accept people who decided to not conform to the netiquette. Changing answers by a bot means there is no more respect for human choices.

Again, if you think netiquette conceived by you/few is the final word carved over iron, then I have no issues. Also, when you state human choice -- I don't want to expand this further -- it means choices of others as well.

What your bot would have done with the "hi" I wrote on the top of my answer? What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear words like "suck", "fuck" and so?

Bot ? Since when is procmail a bot ? anyways, you can do something about it (I have tons like that), but all that matters whether you want to or not. For instance, while replying I make vim place cursor at the bottom of quoted reply to ease in replying and also make vim fold replies. To conclude, it is not the theme of discussion with which I have an issue but the tone. Something similar I have seen is ESR page being quoted everywhere without any prior deliberation. Regards, Raghavendra

On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:43 +0100, Ralf Madorf wrote:

...

...

What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear words like "suck", "fuck" and so?

Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" said (I only know the quote in German, so I might badly translate it): "We should use all words that are in layman's terms, since we don't have much of those words." IMO people suffering of Tourette syndrome aren't an issue. If you don't like people with this neuropsychiatric disorder, than filter mails from those people, don't ban them.

- Ralf

PS: I mean, you should ban them using your MUAs filters, but a list shouldn't do.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:07:59 +0100 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:

Whatever the filtering purpose is about, any personal filter fails at the job because answers of others from a filtered mail aren't filtered. It breaks both threads and context. Not a solution.

They can be, but not for the general user without server built in functionality, but better than censorship. -- Kevin Chadwick

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com> wrote:

I use inline replies too given the circumstances. However, to avoid scrolling you can try using t-prot for folding. While replying, vim also folds my messages.

This whole discussion has nothing to do with scrolling, most mail clients can fold the quoted parts out. However, sometimes you want to see the quote to get the context of what is being replied to. In this case you don't want lots of unnecessary stuff, but just enough to understand.

In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines;

Unless you want to piss people off, you should. Personally, I'm likely to just ignore emails that are a mess. I assume many others do the same.

however I would also like to add as to how do you decide how much context to retain in a non-inline reply -- too less will mean no context at all and too much may mean some readers complain.

Don't use non-inline. In the case of inline replies you want to keep just enough so that the answer you are writing makes sense. This requires a bit of thinking and a bit of effort, but if you can't take the time to do that, why should people take the time to read your email?

Again, if you think netiquette conceived by you/few is the final word carved over iron, then I have no issues.

This "netiquette" is indeed not followed by the populace at large, but in mailinglists for opensource projects it is generally agreed upon and expected behavior. If you want to be taken seriously you better follow it. When in Rome... Cheers, Tom

It would appear that on Dec 19, Raghavendra D Prabhu did say:

In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines

{snip}

For instance, while replying I make vim place cursor at the bottom of quoted reply to ease in replying and also make vim fold replies.

Pardon me Raghavendra, But someone who is comfortable (and competent) enough with vim to make it automatically place the cursor at the bottom shouldn't find it hard to use -- VISUAL LINE -- mode to quickly crop out most of the non-relevant content from a quoted message. So I guess the most relevant part of your entire post were the words "I don't want to"... <sigh> Speaking for myself I have to say that while I personally don't give a rat whether someone does top, bottom, or in-line posting. I do care about "whole quoting"... Though as long as the new {NON-quoted} text is significantly longer than the combined total of all the quoted text then I tend to forgive even that. And I should mention that I'm inclined to think that relevance matters more than context when trimming. Though admittedly it wouldn't be right to miss quote to the extent that someone who says they think "all rabid dogs should be shot on sight", as only that they think "all dogs" should be...

To conclude, it is not the theme of discussion with which I have an issue but the tone.

Now here I'm inclined to agree. Even when they are busy picking on someone for the horrible bandwidth wasting practice of whole quoting instead of just the relatively trivial matter of posting on top of a {hopefully} well trimmed quote, it's much more productive to do so gently. Perhaps to explain why {in case the alleged offender simply doesn't understand yet} And even to say 'please'... Whereas to jump in like a swat team on a sniper is only going to make it more likely that the guy who might have been willing to conform without agreeing, will instead stubbornly stand with his back against the wall and fight, like it was as important to never give up as if it was part of the great Emacs/Vi holy war or something... <grin> -- | ~^~ ~^~ | <*> <*> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook | ^ J(tWdy)P | \___/ <<jtwdyp@ttlc.net>> But if I actually knew everything, then I'd know I was an idiot...