On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:14:44 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Take books for example, when getting a new ones, in a series, I
hardly ever re-read the old one just to get a start on the new one.

Yes, but do you read the last chapter of the book first? :-)

Not always, but I just opened a book last week to around page
89. It was a hell of a good read, so I found it worth going back to
restart at page one. :-)

I also rotate around among three to five books I'm reading
simultaneously.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:14:44 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Take books for example, when getting a new ones, in a series, I
hardly ever re-read the old one just to get a start on the new one.

Yes, but do you read the last chapter of the book first? :-)

No -- that would be too much like skimming through to get to
the bottom posting. ;-)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:20:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
... you still got a bottle of that wine left (napa valley, NOT french, ...

Franzia Merlot from Ripon, CA. Where is Ripon?

Just east of Ripoff. :-)
Acually http://www.cityofripon.org/_Maps/10mirad.htm

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:44:13 -0700, "Ed Price"
wrote:


"Ham op" wrote in message
...
I've used the internet since 1985 [DARPA net] and have yet to see the 11th
commandment prohibiting top posting or forcing bottom posting.

I prefer TOP POSTING.



And I prefer editing and bottom posting. Obviously, if you don't take the
time to distill the OP's comments, then you bury your reply under his
verbiage. Perhaps one of the best arguments for editing is that you have to
think about what's important in the previous post. That allows you to focus
your reply.

Another criteria for deciding to top or bottom post is your estimation of
the audience. Critical thinkers will want to review the salient points of
the discussion, and an edited bottom post gives them the facts in a linear
fashion. However, if you think your audience is a bunch of
attention-deficient rude boobs, then top posting is indicated. Top posting
is ideally suited to replies that consist of "Yeah, me too!"


I rarely see those -- they usually appear at the end of a
properly-formatted bottom post, right after the original 235-line
posting.

By the way, not to be a spelling Nazi, but if you're going to
appear oh so proper and pompous, you really should look up the
singular of criteria for when (as above) its the correct word.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:28:46 +0100, Spike
wrote:

Ed Price wrote:

Obviously, if you don't take the
time to distill the OP's comments, then you bury your reply under his
verbiage. Perhaps one of the best arguments for editing is that you have to
think about what's important in the previous post. That allows you to focus
your reply.

What an excellent philosophy.

Perhaps the top-posters and non-editors are merely guilty of lack of
focus and an ability to think.

from
Aero Spike


Or are just unwilling to trace over ground already many-times
plowed.

kashe:

You are in good form tonight, I am splitting a gut reading those responses of
yours! grin

I was bored and headed for bed, till you showed up...

John

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:14:44 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Take books for example, when getting a new ones, in a series, I
hardly ever re-read the old one just to get a start on the new one.

Yes, but do you read the last chapter of the book first? :-)

No -- that would be too much like skimming through to get to
the bottom posting. ;-)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:40:02 +0100, Big Mac.
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:38:23 -0700, "John Smith"
drivelled:

If you want to say something to me, don't intermingle it together with
all the text I just wrote, I remember what I wrote, just write a damn
reply...

He probably just did that because the average American seems to have
the attention span of a goldfish.

Not that I have anything against Americans. In fact I support several
charities that look after dumb creatures.


Shoudn't you be out looking for bombers instead of wasting
time on usenet?

wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:28:46 +0100, Spike
wrote:

Ed Price wrote:

Obviously, if you don't take the
time to distill the OP's comments, then you bury your reply under his
verbiage. Perhaps one of the best arguments for editing is that you have to
think about what's important in the previous post. That allows you to focus
your reply.

What an excellent philosophy.

Perhaps the top-posters and non-editors are merely guilty of lack of
focus and an ability to think.


Or are just unwilling to trace over ground already many-times plowed.

Or ploughed.

One thing that top-posters fail to recognise is that not all ng users
set their readers to order posts by thread. It is quite possible, with
a suitable newsreader, to order posts by time and date, rather than
subject.

Unfortunately, those who merely bang the Reply key to top-post their
answer frequently have the point to which they are replying way off
the bottom of the screen, which it is not immediately obvious without
scrolling down.

Top-posting also encorages the lazy or incompetent to avoid properly
trimming their posts.

There are even those who used to trim and bottom-post who now top-post
exclusively, but who quote the RFC as if it is some religious mantra
in some form of self-justification.

from
Aero Spike

NunYa Bidness wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:13:59 +0100, "Polymath"
Gave us:


sdrawkcab is backwards spelt backwards!


A complete idiot, you are.

No he's not, there's LOADS of bits missing.
--
;-)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

Spike wrote:

Truly it can be said that of this week's outbursts
'Les sanglots longs Des violons Du Grand Poseur
Blessent mon coeur D'une langueur Monotone'

from
Aero Spike

Wot? That's foreign innit? Bleedin' Frogs!
--
;-)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk