In article , "0000" wrote:

Snip

Is it really necessary to cross post this?

Please stick to rec.radio.amateur.misc.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Is it really necessary to cross post this?
Please stick to rec.radio.shortwave

Telamon wrote:
In article , "0000" wrote:

Snip

Is it really necessary to cross post this?

Please stick to rec.radio.amateur.misc.

"whoever" whoever@wherever wrote in message
...
Is it really necessary to cross post this?
Please stick to rec.radio.shortwave

Telamon wrote:
In article , "0000" wrote:

Snip

Is it really necessary to cross post this?

Please stick to rec.radio.amateur.misc.



LOL!!!!!

In article ,
whoever whoever@wherever wrote:

Is it really necessary to cross post this?
Please stick to rec.radio.shortwave

Telamon wrote:
In article , "0000" wrote:

Snip

Is it really necessary to cross post this?

Please stick to rec.radio.amateur.misc.


Yes, it was necessary to complain about it you stupid top posting loser.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Why are you still cross posting this to rec.radio.amateur.misc
you stupid bottom posting loser, or is that bottom feeder?
ESAD
ps just remember who started the name calling and have fun listening
you wantabe ham!

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
whoever whoever@wherever wrote:


Is it really necessary to cross post this?
Please stick to rec.radio.shortwave

Telamon wrote:

In article , "0000" wrote:

Snip

Is it really necessary to cross post this?

Please stick to rec.radio.amateur.misc.



Yes, it was necessary to complain about it you stupid top posting loser.

In article ,
whoever whoever@wherever wrote:

Why are you still cross posting this to rec.radio.amateur.misc you
stupid bottom posting loser, or is that bottom feeder? ESAD ps just
remember who started the name calling and have fun listening you
wantabe ham!

Why are you still cross posting you top posting moron. I have no
interest in becoming a "ham."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
whoever whoever@wherever wrote:

Why are you still cross posting you bottom posting moron. I have no
interest in you becoming a "ham."

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
whoever whoever@wherever wrote:


Why are you still cross posting this to rec.radio.amateur.misc you
stupid bottom posting loser, or is that bottom feeder? ESAD ps just
remember who started the name calling and have fun listening you
wantabe ham!


Why are you still cross posting you top posting moron. I have no
interest in becoming a "ham."


Well, you are making more sense but that's just because you copied my
words. Still posting at the top though clueless one.

Your signature should be ever.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

THANK YOU!

Lloyd wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting. Not only does
every tech support department do that in their email, it also makes a
lot more sense on Usenet. That way, you don't have to wade through a
bunch of crap to find the most recent comments.

People who think top posting is somehow uncool are living in the
ancient past of Usenet. Top posting is the choice of modern IT
departments, and it should be ours as well.

--
Lloyd

"Wally Gator" wrote in message
...
THANK YOU!

For what? Validating laziness?

Lloyd wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting.

Yes, there is. The proper way to post on Usenet is as I'm doing here. It
allows readers to keep up with the flow of threads, amongst other things.

Not only does
every tech support department do that in their email,

Which has nothing at all to do with Usenet, or how Usenet threads evolve.

it also makes a
lot more sense on Usenet. That way, you don't have to wade through a
bunch of crap to find the most recent comments.

There goes my irony meter.

Lack of netiquette in not snipping is causing the very problem that Lloyd
thinks top posting will cure. IOW snipping (and marking those snips)
alleviates the problem that he thinks is being created by not top posting.
In reality, if you actually followed proper posting methods the problem of
extraneous crap would be eliminated. Make snips, note them as such, and
place your comments in the appropriate places within the text. No one reads
the crap, and the conversation will flow. That's what it's all about.

Here's a useful link:

http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php

Here's another:

From http://ursine.dyndns.org/wiki/index....le=Top_Posting

"While we hope you aren't one of them, some people failed writing in school;
others just forgot that most written languages (English included) are read
from top down instead of random order. Another problem is that top-posters
often word their replies on the basis that you have already read all
previous messages. This is a poor assumption to make; the reader may never
have received the message to which you're responding. For example (but by no
means the only example), some people choose to killfile messages from
certain users in a newsgroup. In any case, there's a realistic probability
that the message you are responding to was not read by the same audience
your message will reach "

I for one couldn't begin to guess how often I receive messages out of their
proper sequence. The original post isn't always the first one to show up,
and likewise, replies are made to replies that I've never seen. That's just
one reason.

This link http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_topp.html clearly
shows the proper way to make a Usenet post especially regarding top posting.
I recommend it. Here's a snippet:

"The correct manner of replying to a post is simply common sense, placing
response after original (quotes marked )

This is comment 1

And this is my reply to comment 1

And comment 2

And my reply to comment 2

And comment 3

And reply to comment 3

If you're still having difficulty in understanding why this interlacing of
comment and reply is the sensible way of doing it, let me give you an
example to ponder."

I suggest you go there, and see the given example for yourself.

Here's yet another article you ought to find of interest:

http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html

Not only that, but here's a link to an article explaining how top posting
makes it difficult for the blind (yes, the blind) to follow newsgroup
threads:

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_chr0.htm


People who think top posting is somehow uncool are living in the
ancient past of Usenet. Top posting is the choice of modern IT
departments, and it should be ours as well.

I'm still waiting to hear a good reason for it. Top posting just can't
compare with interleaved posting, which is what I've done in this post. My
post is easy to follow; I wonder what the top posting reply will look like.

Not only that, and this isn't directed at Lloyd, it's been my experience
that in arguments on Usenet, of which I've gleefully been involved in more
than my share, that it's the people who can't argue their position that
insist on top posting. If you don't address the issues point by point, you
can ignore the ones that make you uncomfortable. Top posting is the easiest
way to accomplish this. In Usenet warfare, it's the coward's way out. As for
the non-argumentative posts, well...that's all been addressed in the URL's
that I provided.

The weird thing is that I've been reading Lloyd's post for some time now,
and just to be sure my memory was accurate I googled to be sure...and he's
never been a top poster. Strange.

"Honus" wrote:
The weird thing is that I've been reading Lloyd's post for some time now,
and just to be sure my memory was accurate I googled to be sure...and
he's never been a top poster. Strange.


A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?