Re: [tlug] An old topic

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Josh Glover writes:

 > I think you and I (and Chuck) have a slightly different definition of
 > top-posting. Chuck's intro would not be considered as top-posting by
 > me, even though he wrote at the top. Depends on the situation, as you
 > say.

This is unfortunately one of those cases[1] where syntax is
insufficient to classify a post as a top-post or not.  You need to
look at the content to see whether it's a top-post or not.  A top-post
is one where the comment comes before the context it replies to.  A
preface's context is the channel it occurs in; the quoted material
being introduced is not part of the context because it wasn't present
in the channel previously.


Footnotes: 
[1]  I once proposed on n.a.p that the *definition* of spam should be
a post made on more than one newsgroup (ie, not crossposted), because
people were trying to come up with definitions that were sympathetic
to newbies who didn't know how to crosspost.  The point was that
defining what should be flagged as spam should be a litmus test, and
in principle can be because crossposting addresses all the legitimate
needs for multiple Usenet posts.

Whether or not it needs to be addressed by cancelling or other forms
of "Usenet death" is another matter.  I got flamed for that by
Dave "mythical AI newsreader" Hayes, but he eventually agreed that
that was the right definition of spam, even though he still vehemently
opposed cancelbots. ;-)