NIST Makes Astounding Discovery
 

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

"...first responders may be able to receive and see simple patterns�like
Morse code�from a survivor repeatedly turning a radio or phone on and off,
in cases where the signal was too weak to receive audible voice messages."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...ion_dcconv.htm

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 +0000, N2EY wrote:

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

[snip]

....and guess what? It probably cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
thousands of dollars to arrive at a conclusion that most good radio
operators knew about decades ago!!! Doh!....

Larry VE7EA

In Bill Turner
wrote:

On 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

"...first responders may be able to receive and see simple patterns—like
Morse code—from a survivor repeatedly turning a radio or phone on and
off, in cases where the signal was too weak to receive audible voice
messages."
__________________________________________________ _________

May I suggest the correct conclusion to be drawn?

Get better equipment so voice will get through. ...

What's "better" mean? How much better is "good enough"? How much more will
the "better" stuff cost?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:13:02 -0800, Larry Gagnon
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 +0000, N2EY wrote:

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

[snip]

...and guess what? It probably cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
thousands of dollars to arrive at a conclusion that most good radio
operators knew about decades ago!!! Doh!....

Larry VE7EA

I'm with you there.

The logical thing would be to develop a digital system (after all
morse is digital) that would appear as text (so non-operators could
grok it), and with variable transmission rates to get the message
through - auto repeat? (and/or lots of abbreviations).

Then test it on some blown up buildings.

But if I were the NIST "scientist" would my primary goal be to solve
the problem or make money studying it?

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:50:28 -0500, default wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:13:02 -0800, Larry Gagnon
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 +0000, N2EY wrote:

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

[snip]

...and guess what? It probably cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
thousands of dollars to arrive at a conclusion that most good radio
operators knew about decades ago!!! Doh!....

Larry VE7EA

I'm with you there.

The logical thing would be to develop a digital system (after all
morse is digital) that would appear as text (so non-operators could
grok it), and with variable transmission rates to get the message
through - auto repeat? (and/or lots of abbreviations).

When Morse failed to get through, the locally-based branch of a mutlinational
oil produced resorts to ...

FAX. Write the message with a broad-tipped felt pen and send radiofax.
Worked for them. Usually their last Morse transmission as conditons
deteriorated was "send fax ... send fax ..."

Then test it on some blown up buildings.

But if I were the NIST "scientist" would my primary goal be to solve
the problem or make money studying it?

If I were him, right now I'd be keeping a very low profile after such an
astonishing announcement of the very obvious.

She was the telegraphist's daughter, and she
only did it 'cos her dada did it ;-)

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:41:56 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:
Morse is digital if it results from on-off keying using the fingers.
Hard to argue with that. :-)

john graesser wrote:

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On 01 Jan 2005 19:25:09 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

What's "better" mean?

Check your dictionary.


How much better is "good enough"?

Good enough for 100% reliability.


How much more will
the "better" stuff cost?

Doesn't matter when lives are at stake. Get it.

One of the local hams here is also a pilot instructor, while flying one day
the mic on his aircraft radio broke. Being a long time brass pounder he took
the mic apart and made a key out of it.

Luckily one of the people in the tower that day knew morse and was able to
understand Mike's messages to the tower.

Lucky for them that aircraft band was still am so Mike had a carrier to turn
on and off.

Nothing is 100% reliable. You never know when you will be faced with using
broken or impaired equipment so you have to be prepared to improvise.
thanks, John.
KC5DWD

Sounds like a good story, except:

Why would he need to take the mic apart when he could just use the push
to talk switch?

If the "radio broke", how was he able to transmit at all?

If what really broke was the mic or the modulation section of the only
comm radio on board, transmitting a long carrier on a regular basis
would get the attention of ATC personnel and resulted in a call to the
aircraft.

If he was an instructor, or a pilot at all, he should know the
procedures for communications failure as described in FARs 91.126, 91.127,
and 91.129, none of which call for using morse code.

FAR 91.185 wouldn't apply since he couldn't be flying IFR with just one
radio.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

john graesser wrote:

Nothing is 100% reliable. You never know when you will be faced with using
broken or impaired equipment so you have to be prepared to improvise.
thanks, John.
KC5DWD

Good point. But nowadays, why not call the tower's published telephone
number on your cell phone? In the early '70s an acquaintance used 2M
autopatch to get landing clearance for the USAF C-130 Herculese he was
flying when its radios died - thought the Barksdale AFB tower folks were
mighty surprised to get that call long before the days of cell phones...

Jim Horn, WB9SYN/6

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:41:56 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

(after all morse is digital)
Morse is binary (having two states), but it is not digital, since the
states do not represent numbers.

Morse is digital if it results from on-off keying using the fingers.

chuckle Good one!

Tony

Misleading posting-order corrected.....

"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:41:56 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

Morse is digital if it results from on-off keying using the fingers.

(after all morse is digital)
Morse is binary (having two states), but it is not digital, since the
states do not represent numbers.
chuckle Good one!

"James Horn" wrote in message
...
john graesser wrote:

Nothing is 100% reliable. You never know when you will be faced with
using
broken or impaired equipment so you have to be prepared to improvise.
thanks, John.
KC5DWD

Good point. But nowadays, why not call the tower's published telephone
number on your cell phone? In the early '70s an acquaintance used 2M
autopatch to get landing clearance for the USAF C-130 Herculese he was
flying when its radios died - thought the Barksdale AFB tower folks were
mighty surprised to get that call long before the days of cell phones...

Jim Horn, WB9SYN/6

This occured long before cell phones and perhaps even before the common
availability of HT's. He has been a ham for about 50 years and was a pilot
instructor around 30 years ago. Now he develops software and is part owner
of a utility trailer mfr. If you doubt his truth (which I don't, he is one
of the most honest people I know) contact W5WQN and ask him about it.

It was the ptt on the mic that broke, so as another noted, he couldn't just
key down on the mic and get the towers attention.

As for following proper rules, this is Texas, we tend to do what is needed,
not what some drone in Washington comes up with as rules.
thanks, John.
KC5DWD

Bill Turner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:12:43 -0600, "john graesser"
wrote:

It was the ptt on the mic that broke, so as another noted, he couldn't just
key down on the mic and get the towers attention.
__________________________________________________ _________

So once he had the mike apart and somehow keyed the PTT (touching wires
together, presumably) why didn't he just talk into the mike? This story
still does not ring true.

--
Bill, W6WRT

Even if true, rather than being an example of "morse code saves the day",
it is an example of stupidity.

Contrary to what most of the non-flying public may think, loss of
communications in the air is a non-event and not a life or death situation.

If you lose communications at a towered airport, all you have lost is the
ability to get traffic information from the tower.

Essentially what you are supposed to do is carefully enter the pattern
being extra vigilant for other aircraft and watch the tower for light
gun signals.

The pilot's attention needs to be outside the aircraft looking for other
aircraft, not screwing around playing with microphone wires.

Actions as described might be part of the reason this person "used to be"
an instructor.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:12:39 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Bill Turner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:12:43 -0600, "john graesser"
wrote:

It was the ptt on the mic that broke, so as another noted, he couldn't just
key down on the mic and get the towers attention.
__________________________________________________ _________

So once he had the mike apart and somehow keyed the PTT (touching wires
together, presumably) why didn't he just talk into the mike? This story
still does not ring true.

--
Bill, W6WRT

Even if true, rather than being an example of "morse code saves the day",
it is an example of stupidity.

Contrary to what most of the non-flying public may think, loss of
communications in the air is a non-event and not a life or death situation.

If you lose communications at a towered airport, all you have lost is the
ability to get traffic information from the tower.

Essentially what you are supposed to do is carefully enter the pattern
being extra vigilant for other aircraft and watch the tower for light
gun signals.

The "comms failure" procedure is taught to student pilots (at least here in .au)
AND PRACTICED prior to their PPL. You enter via the normal entry point and
route, obviously maintaining separation. The tower intially will challenge you,
then on no response will request an acknowledgement that you can read THEIR
transmissions. If you can read them, they simply direct you and keep other
aircraft advised. In the absence of an ACK, it's the light system - and from
the challenge point onwards they alert other aircraft to the situation, so there
is minimal hazard.

The pilot's attention needs to be outside the aircraft looking for other
aircraft, not screwing around playing with microphone wires.

Rule of thumb here is 90% outside, 10% on instruments for VFR

Actions as described might be part of the reason this person "used to be"
an instructor.

budgie wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:12:39 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Bill Turner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:12:43 -0600, "john graesser"
wrote:

It was the ptt on the mic that broke, so as another noted, he couldn't just
key down on the mic and get the towers attention.
__________________________________________________ _________

So once he had the mike apart and somehow keyed the PTT (touching wires
together, presumably) why didn't he just talk into the mike? This story
still does not ring true.

--
Bill, W6WRT

Even if true, rather than being an example of "morse code saves the day",
it is an example of stupidity.

Contrary to what most of the non-flying public may think, loss of
communications in the air is a non-event and not a life or death situation.

If you lose communications at a towered airport, all you have lost is the
ability to get traffic information from the tower.

Essentially what you are supposed to do is carefully enter the pattern
being extra vigilant for other aircraft and watch the tower for light
gun signals.

The "comms failure" procedure is taught to student pilots (at least here in .au)
AND PRACTICED prior to their PPL. You enter via the normal entry point and
route, obviously maintaining separation. The tower intially will challenge you,
then on no response will request an acknowledgement that you can read THEIR
transmissions. If you can read them, they simply direct you and keep other
aircraft advised. In the absence of an ACK, it's the light system - and from
the challenge point onwards they alert other aircraft to the situation, so there
is minimal hazard.

The pilot's attention needs to be outside the aircraft looking for other
aircraft, not screwing around playing with microphone wires.

Rule of thumb here is 90% outside, 10% on instruments for VFR

Actions as described might be part of the reason this person "used to be"
an instructor.

It is basically the same in the US.

So far I've had three comm failures in flight in rental aircraft, none of
which caused the slightest sweat.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:04:29 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

Misleading posting-order corrected.....

Misleading how?

I'm a bottom poster and trimmer for about 15 years or more.

Tony

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:21:09 +0800, budgie wrote:


The pilot's attention needs to be outside the aircraft looking for other
aircraft, not screwing around playing with microphone wires.

Rule of thumb here is 90% outside, 10% on instruments for VFR

Messing too much with microphone wires will make you a candidate for
the Darwin price due to the Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT)
syndrome.

A well known case is the L1011 crash in Florida killing 100, when the
crew were too occupied fixing the landing gear light problem and
forgot to fly the aircraft.

http://www.aviationcrm.com/humanerror.htm

Paul OH3LWR

The posting misquoted me as a bottom poster.

Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

English reads from the top-down with _FOOT_ notes
at the _FOOT_ of the page.

"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:04:29 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:
Misleading posting-order corrected.....
Misleading how?
I'm a bottom poster and trimmer for about 15 years or more.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:27:08 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

Top-posting is not the preferred option, unless you mean it is your
*personal* preference. You should be able to make the distinction
easily enough.

Top posting _IS_ the preferred option, not the least reason
being that you get to see the new stuff immediately without
having to trawl through repeated stuff that you've
already seen.

English is read from the top down, and citations and _FOOT_
notes belong at the _FOOT_ of the page.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:55:14 +0000, wrote:
Top-posting is not the preferred option, unless you mean it is your
*personal* preference.
Actually, it's Bill Gates' preference, since Outlook and Outlook Express
default to top posting and they're used by darn near everyone in
business. It can't help but carry over to private email.

In article , says...

English is read from the top down, and citations and _FOOT_
notes belong at the _FOOT_ of the page.


So, chronologically, a reply belongs at the bottom, not at the top

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:19:10 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

English is read from the top down

Japanese is read from the top down.

English is read from left to right.

Airy R.Bean wrote:
Top posting _IS_ the preferred option, not the least reason
being that you get to see the new stuff immediately without
having to trawl through repeated stuff that you've
already seen.

We should get away from this silly top/bottom (actually interleaved)
posting argument and get to something that is important, like "how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin", Or "Can God make a burrito so
hot that he can't eat it?"

- Mike KB3EIA -

I agree entirely.

However, it is not the top-posters who originate
the rather silly neurotic threads on the matter. It is the
bottom-posters who so behave and so illustrate
their mental problems.

(As do religionists demonstrate their mental problems
in that they live in a world of make-believe)

The top-posters only exercise their right of reply to
state the truth that top-posting _IS_ the preferred option.


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Airy R.Bean wrote:
Top posting _IS_ the preferred option, not the least reason
being that you get to see the new stuff immediately without
having to trawl through repeated stuff that you've
already seen.

We should get away from this silly top/bottom (actually interleaved)
posting argument and get to something that is important, like "how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin", Or "Can God make a burrito so
hot that he can't eat it?"

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:27:08 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

The posting misquoted me as a bottom poster.

Ahh.

Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

That's your opinion. Not mine.

Tony

It's not just my opinion, it's the blatant truth that you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:27:08 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

The posting misquoted me as a bottom poster.

Ahh.

Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

That's your opinion. Not mine.

Tony

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
It's not just my opinion, it's the blatant truth that you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:27:08 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"

wrote:

The posting misquoted me as a bottom poster.

Ahh.

Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

That's your opinion. Not mine.

Tony

Bad manners are no excuse! Learn to be polite and follow the
rules!

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:21:39 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

It's not just my opinion, it's the blatant truth that you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.

However I also trim.

Tony

Your outburst below seems to be self-referential
in terms of bad manners.

There is no association with manners in the free and
personal choice of whether to post at the top or at the bottom,
it's just that - a free choice.

There is nothing that it impolite in exercising a free choice as to
style of presentation - if you think that there is - then you condemn
yourself by being impolite to those of us who are top-posters.

That you choose to target those whose choice is not your own
would seem to suggest that if anybody be the habitué of bad manners,
then it is you.

There are no rules on the matter.

Your post below is a shining example of why top-posting is the
better and preferred option, for, in order to read what you put,
a page down was necessary. Another example of bad manners
from you, in fact, because you inconvenience those who just sit
on the "next" button to thumb through a NG.

"Clarence_A" wrote in message
om...
"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
It's not just my opinion, it's the blatant truth that you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.
"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:27:08 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"

wrote:
The posting misquoted me as a bottom poster.
Ahh.
Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.
That's your opinion. Not mine.
Bad manners are no excuse! Learn to be polite and follow the
rules!

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...

snipped BS
"Clarence_A" wrote in message
om...
"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...

snipped BS
"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:27:08 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"

wrote:
The posting misquoted me as a bottom poster.
Ahh.
Top-posting is the preferred option - you get to
see the new content without having to page down
through loads of already-seen quotations.
That's your opinion. Not mine.

Bad manners are no excuse! Learn to be polite and follow the
rules!





Another bad mannered top poster made his insensitive obvious and
ignore good advice so attempt to prove his defective preference
for breaking rules and being a general pain!

What do you need to teach manners? I see your mother failed!
Also you are not even trying!

There are rules by convention. But you choose to ignore them.

Since we are all free to exercise one option. Finding a poster
where there is
no intelligence conveyed! PLONK!

BYE

For someone who is shouting the odds about
bad manners, your outburst below really takes
the biscuit. It is the most hypocritical of rudeness.

Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then
everyone, including you, would follow the convention
of top-posting.

As to your rather silly and infantile outburst below....

Firstly, it is random nonsense and complies with none
of the conventions (or, in your own logic, rules) of written
English - hypocrisy once again from you, it would seem.

Secondly, grow up, Clarence!

Stupid boy.

"Clarence_A" wrote in message
...
"Clarence_A" wrote in message
Bad manners are no excuse! Learn to be polite and follow the
rules!
Another bad mannered top poster made his insensitive obvious and
ignore good advice so attempt to prove his defective preference
for breaking rules and being a general pain!
What do you need to teach manners? I see your mother failed!
Also you are not even trying!
There are rules by convention. But you choose to ignore them.
Since we are all free to exercise one option. Finding a poster
where there is
no intelligence conveyed! PLONK!

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:02 +0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then everyone,
including you, would follow the convention of top-posting.

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

- 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!

It's just a guide - the rest of it is worth reading too....

- Mike

In article , Bill Turner
writes:

First of all, this anecdote has the ring of untruth.

Roughly about 12 bells all ringing out some jolly tune. :-)

First of all, Air Regulations are in place, have been in place
for decades, to handle aircraft without working radio
equipment. Those are lights in hand-held spotlights.

While it is an Air Regulation that aircraft operating into, over, and
out of air traffic controlled airports must have radios for normal
traffic guidance, there are also safety regulations which anticipate
that someone at some time might have equipment problems.
Flight instructors would surely know that.

In a real-life happening about two decades ago in Los Angeles,
a helicopter instructor's microphone somehow got stuck on
transmit on the normal tower frequency. Having had an aircraft
receiver on in my workshop one Saturday (house is about a mile
and a half from Bob Hope Airport - formerly the Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport in the east end of San Fernando Valley), I heard
the happening. All listeners could hear the the instructor advise
his student about helicopter hover flying. Somehow the mike
was connected to both the helo intercom and the aircraft radio.

Being AM, the stuck helo transmissions would block all weaker
signals on the BUR tower frequency. BUR tower could overpower
the helo's radio because it was higher power and had elevated
antennas of good size. However, all other traffic was blocked out
for the BUR tower and they had to get a temporary recording
going on other frequencies (approach, departure, radar vectoring)
plus advising VNY (Van Nuys, center of Valley) and LAX of the
problem. The radio blockage continued for about a half hour and
disrupted normal afternoon flying at BUR. How the helo was
informed isn't known but one circulating story has it that an FAA
van drove out to the end of the airport where the hovering took
place and signalled to the helo somehow, perhaps by lights.
The helicopter instructor apologized (apparently when signalled)
over the radio and the frustrated tower operators (at least two
voices) told him, also over the radio, to "report to the tower." :-)

But even if true, this is a perfect example of the wrong way to solve a
problem. Instead of relying on Morse for a backup, how about having a
second radio, perhaps an HT, in the plane?

That's quite common in this area for general aviation aircraft who
don't already have two comm radios installed. The Greater Los
Angeles section has an extraordinary amount of aircraft traffic.
IFR applies to some localized areas. Generally, the FAA can
transmit voice over the VOR and/or Localizer in the adjacent
radionavigation band (108 - 118 MHz, also AM). The major HT
manufacturers all produce a civil aviation model for private aircraft
use. Lacking that, the towers have fairly biright aimable spotlights
which they can use to signal an aircraft; seldom used, they are
there for emergencies. Lacking recognition by a "silent" aircraft,
the FAA is prepared to handle it as best as other traffic allows.
The FAA air controller's school does not have morse code
cognition in its curriculum.



Posted on 17 Jan 05

In article ,
mike wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:02 +0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then everyone,
including you, would follow the convention of top-posting.

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

- 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!

It's just a guide - the rest of it is worth reading too....

That's correct.

The convention on USENET, and on ARPANET mailing lists such as
"info-mac" (the first I ever read), has long been one of "quote the
material you are responding to, and put your response after it".
That's been the case since at least 1980, and I believe that it dates
back even further than that - probably to the first Unix email systems
and likely back to the days of email on PDP-11s and
TOPS-10/TOPS-20/TENEX systems. In other words, it's a deeply rooted
Internet tradition.

I believe this tradition is probably derived from older written-English
traditions, such as the "letters to the editor" tradition in which a
writer's letter would be printed in whole or part, and an editor's
responses to the points made therein being printed after, or
interspersed with the letter. I've never seen an editor's rejoinders
printed *before* the letter writer's text.

Footnotes and other clarifying comments inserted by a book's editor
are likewise printed beneath the text to which they refer.

On the Internet, the use of "top posting" is a much more recent
phenomenon. It seems to date to the first arrival of Internet-capable
email software authored by Microsoft, a company whom many seem to feel
takes delight in ignoring prevailing standards.

One might say that the Internet's "gentleman's tradition" (no
disrespect to the ladies being intended by the use of that phrase) is
one of interspersed or "bottom" posting, and that those who understand
the Internet technical culture and who value "gentlemanly" behavior
would choose to respect that tradition.

In an absolute sense, one can argue that neither top nor bottom
posting is inherently superior. Howeve, bottom/interspersed posting
"got here first" and has been part of Internet tradition for longer
than there has been an Internet (big "I").

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

The comma in "top of the message, or include just" shows that
two suggestions are being made, one suggestion is
bottom-posting and the other suggestion is not.

As you say, "It's just a guide" - not rules, but just a guide.

I see that you conveniently forgot to quote the author's
comments that the quoted bit below was just his own
personal preference and not a rule.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:02 +0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then everyone,
including you, would follow the convention of top-posting.
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

- 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!
It's just a guide - the rest of it is worth reading too....

The style in which one posts has nothing to do
with gentlemanliness.

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
One might say that the Internet's "gentleman's tradition" (no
disrespect to the ladies being intended by the use of that phrase) is
one of interspersed or "bottom" posting, and that those who understand
the Internet technical culture and who value "gentlemanly" behavior
would choose to respect that tradition.

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
The style in which one posts has nothing to do
with gentlemanliness.

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
One might say that the Internet's "gentleman's tradition" (no
disrespect to the ladies being intended by the use of that
phrase) is
one of interspersed or "bottom" posting, and that those who
understand
the Internet technical culture and who value "gentlemanly"
behavior
would choose to respect that tradition.



Obviously the man is unaware of what a gentleman is!

Plonk!

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:02:54 -0800, Bill Turner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:56:54 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote:
In an absolute sense, one can argue that neither top nor bottom posting
is inherently superior. Howeve, bottom/interspersed posting "got here
first" and has been part of Internet tradition for longer than there has
been an Internet (big "I").
It's good to re-evaluate so-called traditions from time to time.

In the business world, top posting is nearly universal due to use of
Microsoft Office, which defaults that way. Given that many more people
use Office than use Usenet (I think), shouldn't the majority rule? If
not, why not?

The following reasons are NOT valid, IMO:

1. Tradition.

2. English is read from top to bottom. I've ALREADY read the quoted
part, I don't need to do it again, usually. It is nice to have it
available to refer to if needed, but the NEW part is what I'm really
interested in.

I am bottom posting here (tradition) but I'm thinking of changing.
Convince me otherwise if you can. Mind is open.

Imagine someone coming into the middle of the conversation (posting
exchange) and not having already read the quoted part. With bottom posting
they (in particular me) can get up to speed on the thread easier.

Server load, net traffic, etc, can cause news msgs and email to arrive out
of sync with other replies. With top posting you can never be sure of the
order of things you are reading without scrolling up and down a lot. Mix
this with msgs that are part top and part bottom posted and you have a
maze to try to figure out. (I/you/we could argue that however a msg comes
to you - top or bottom posted - you and others who may reply to it should
follow that style for that msg and not mix top/bottom posting)

I'm babbling and probably not making sense. Let me try this - This is how
I see top posting -

Answer

Question
Answer
Comment
Reply
Question
Answer
Comment
Reply
Question
Answer
Comment
Reply
Question

Hope I've not conviently left out some things. ;-)
Now that I've butted in and caused this thread to drag on longer than
it should - Hey! - How about some homebrew radio content!? (technically
this should be the start of a new thread with a new subject, maybe I'll do
that when I test my antenna some more) I just built a discone style
antenna with a lot of radials from 36 inch lengths of wire welding rod. I
put it on top of a pole that used to have a bird house on it in my
backyard. My neighbors grandfather says it looks like a "sputnic" landed
and abducted the bird house.

- Mike

You were the one to introduce the concept of
bad manners into this discussion, but it is you
who persists with rudeness.

Therefore you illustrate why top-posting is
the preferred style amongst civilised people,
because bottom-posters are characterised
by bad manners.

"Clarence_A" wrote in message
...
"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
The style in which one posts has nothing to do
with gentlemanliness.

Obviously the man is unaware of what a gentleman is!

Plonk!

You do not need to be convinced one way or the
other. Whether to post at the top or at the bottom
is a matter of free style and free choice.

It is not an issue of gentlemanliness nor of manners.

Rudeness and personal remarks are perhaps of those issues.

Not replying at all is perhaps of those issues.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
I am bottom posting here (tradition) but I'm thinking of changing.
Convince me otherwise if you can. Mind is open.

If someone comes upon a posting in the middle of the
conversation, and wished to follow the conversation,
then he can go to his news server and review the history.

If the posting that he has come across whets his appetite,
then it is most likely to be the NEW contribution that is
responsible for the whetting, and the best place for
this new material is at the top.

If, however, it is the OLD material that whets his appetite,
then, by other practices that are vaunted as conventions, the
old material will have been much reduced by snipping, and the
someone will be motivated to go back to that older posting, and
so it will be irrelevant to him whether that old material is quoted
at the top or the bottom of the new posting.

"mike" wrote in message
...
Imagine someone coming into the middle of the conversation (posting
exchange) and not having already read the quoted part. With bottom posting
they (in particular me) can get up to speed on the thread easier.