| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Thus said "PJ Hunt" :
I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply. It isn't. If you're too lazy to edit the quoted content to include just the relevant portions that you're replying to, then by all means don't bottom post. You could top-post, but better still, just don't post at all. There are plenty of other posters who value the reader's time enough to edit properly. |
"Bill Denton" wrote Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet. So why is it that you se the MAJORITY of usenet posts, using bottom posting mixed in style? Does that not matter at all to you? Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no scrolling to the bottom required. If, and only if, you only have one comment to make. Top posting does not work any other way. Much more convenient... The only thing convenient thing to do, is for you to **** people off, as you are doing by your illogical insistence that you are right, and the other 90% are wrong. Right now, I think it will be more logical for me to plonk yur a**. -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004 |
Perhaps the majority of the usenet posts you see are bottom posted, but the
majority I see are top posted. And there are a tremendous number of newsgroups out there; I seriously doubt that either of us have seen even a small fraction of them. When I visit a newsgroup where bottom-posting seems to be the convention, I bottom-post; it's not a religion with me. But it appears that most top-post on this newsgroup, so I top-post here. And my initial comment: "Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet" was intended to be humorous; I picked up: ""bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet" from someone else on this thread. I'm sorry you failed to see the humor on it. "Morgans" wrote in message ... "Bill Denton" wrote Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet. So why is it that you se the MAJORITY of usenet posts, using bottom posting mixed in style? Does that not matter at all to you? Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no scrolling to the bottom required. If, and only if, you only have one comment to make. Top posting does not work any other way. Much more convenient... The only thing convenient thing to do, is for you to **** people off, as you are doing by your illogical insistence that you are right, and the other 90% are wrong. Right now, I think it will be more logical for me to plonk yur a**. -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004 |
Robert, Thank you for the explanation.
I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it? Keep in mind I'm not talking about quoting a portion of the message to bring attention to a specific matter. That makes total sense. However, just as I'm sure that no one here starts reading a book or the newspaper from the very beginning every they set it down and then pick it up again, I don't see why they feel we should have to re-read the original message over and over again every someone post a response to the original poster. Just imagine what it would be like if this was how we sent, received and re-sent letters to people. Is there still more here that I'm missing or is this just a matter of some people have done it a certain way for so long and they're so set in their ways that nothing is going to convince them to change? Personally I don't really care if they change or not, if I don't want to scroll through all the previous message they have posted and re-posted, I just bypass it, which is what I find myself doing often. Thanks again for your reply. PJ |
That's why, if I am going to intersperse comments through a message, I will
always top-post something like: "My comments in text". "Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message ... Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Bill Denton" on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:23:29 -0600 spoke: Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet. WOW! That's so, uh, you know, STUPID! Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no scrolling to the bottom required. And MISS the fact that the person replied to OTHER segments below the first paragraph or two... -- The truth is out there, but it's not interesting enough for most people. |
Dave Holford wrote:
It's just like paper files. Yup. Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on top. Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach. Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener, take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It keeps them happy and occupied! People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse people. Jo Anne Dave, |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:08:35 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote: wrote Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the latest communication is at the top odf the stack. I am not. If you're keeping up with the conversation, Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark with the relavent material. you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting. By all means, for one liners, top post, but can you see my response as a top post? It would look like this: **************************************** I guess I forgot to mention I also believe in interleaved posting, where there are separate ressponses to different parts of a longer posting. I also bottom post if the prior post is so short that my comments are no more than a screen or so down. However, if there's only a short response, I will not roll down a hundred lines to satisfy the lunatics who insist that there is one and only one way to respond and that way, goddamn all other opinions, is bottom posting. In short, all three modes have their place. I am not. Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark with the relavent material. By all means, for one liners, top post, but can you see my response as a top post? Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting. If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one inconvenienced. On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:58:55 -0800, Joachim Feise wrote: ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47: I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I missing? A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading. -Joe --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/12/2004 |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote:
Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's proper context. What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting. It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm speaking of those with English as their native language here), including proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts, but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others to conform to my personal standards. It just isn't that big a deal. Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off from lack of acrimony. :-) |
Response at the bottom!
Jo Anne Slaven wrote: Dave Holford wrote: It's just like paper files. Yup. Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on top. Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach. Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener, take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It keeps them happy and occupied! People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse people. Exactly - the latest to arrive goes on top. Just like the "IN" box on a desk which contains responses to correspondence. It is a stack, not a queue. Actually I agree with Bill Denton. In those newsgroups where top posting is the standard I try to top post and in those where bottom posting is the standard I try to bottom post. Sometimes when I'm more interested in the content than the policy I get it wrong. It's like arguing religion - pointless, the believers believe they are right and nothing will convert them. It makes for interminable threads whose content bears no relationship to the header whatsoever - how that helps to not confuse people escapes me. One would expect that if helping peers find information quickly was even a minor consideration the first action would be to make the header relevant. But, it does provide some light entertainment on a slow day. Dave |
In article , PJ Hunt
wrote: I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it? Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central Africa and the South Pole. -john- -- ================================================== ================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ================== |
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:01:51 GMT, wrote:
There are even groups (Hallicrafters for one) that encourage top posting for their blind participants. So for all the blind pilots.... On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote: Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's proper context. What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting. It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm speaking of those with English as their native language here), including proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts, but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others to conform to my personal standards. It just isn't that big a deal. Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off from lack of acrimony. :-) Three to go. Although I prefer to intersperse comments. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
It's the net Nazi way to weed out the lazy. I prefer reading top posts, too,
but the old timers set the standards and don't want their authority questioned. mike regish "ShawnD2112" wrote in message k... Bob, That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I missing? Cheers, Shawn |
Good point. But again, you'll never convince the net Nazis.
mike regish wrote in message ... Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting. If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one inconvenienced. |
"John A. Weeks III" wrote in
Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central Africa and the South Pole. Well that makes absolutely no sense at all. Just as the majority of excuses I've seen for top posting. PJ ============================================ Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather, May sometime another year, we all be back together. JJW ============================================ |
Should have been:
Just as the majority of excuses I've seen against top posting. PJ |
: That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never : understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I : missing? It depends on the group. Here in USENET world, bottom posting is common. However in military circles, top posting is normal and most readers would not see your reply if you posted on the bottom (it is an expedience thing). |
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:24:49 -0600, "Bill Denton"
wrote: That's why, if I am going to intersperse comments through a message, I will always top-post something like: "My comments in text". For the benefit of those to dim to dope it out by observation? |
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
wrote: In article , PJ Hunt wrote: I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it? Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central Africa and the South Pole. And the means of propagation without the internet is ...? |
"Omega" wrote in message news:348od.65578$V41.36060@attbi_s52... : That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never : understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I : missing? It depends on the group. Here in USENET world, bottom posting is common. However in military circles, top posting is normal and most readers would not see your reply if you posted on the bottom (it is an expedience thing). Does DoD still have any internal newgroups or newsfeeds? My command gave up their DoD newsfeed close to a decade ago, so I lost visibility of it. Most of the DoD content I used to get from RN and VN or dialup BBS's (remember those?) soon showed up on web pages. Speaking of 'remember whens' (in answer to another posters question about Usenet propogation), does Fidonet still exist? aem sends..... (just another old fart who started on Usenet with a text interface and a green screen, on a hard-wired dumb vt-100 or dialing in to the UNIX server on an 8086 with a lightning-fast 1200 baud modem.) |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:08:45 GMT, "ameijers"
wrote: ... Speaking of 'remember whens' (in answer to another posters question about Usenet propogation), does Fidonet still exist? I think it does: http://www.fidonet.org/ aem sends..... (just another old fart who started on Usenet with a text interface and a green screen, on a hard-wired dumb vt-100 or dialing in to the UNIX server on an 8086 with a lightning-fast 1200 baud modem.) Hah! I started on a Victor 9000 8088 and a 300 baud modem in 1984. (Hmm. I'm sure about the Victor and the CPU. Please don't make me swear in court about the modem.) How the decades pass when you're messing with technology! Marty |
"I'll see you at Linda's wedding."
"Well, see ya soon." "Congratulations!" "Ten thousand a year." "How much?" "Got a really big raise this time." "Sorry to hear it. How's the job?" "She's not feeling well. Flu, I think." "Same as ever. How's yours?" "How's your wife?" "They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now." "Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?" "Good, and you?" "Bill! How the heck are you?" ShawnD2112 wrote: That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I missing? -- Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm |
(Jennifer) wrote in message . com...
"SYBIL-IZED" wrote in message ... We will let the Mythbusters settle that matter shall we...LOL No need, there's been a Snopes entry on it for years ;) http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/squawk.asp But just because it's on snopes doesn't mean it's a fake! Snopes.com give this an "identifies a statement of indeterminate origin." p.s. the snopes.com entry has some lines that I haven't seen before. Scroll to the bottom. -lance smith |
That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too
difficult for you? mike regish "Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:30:47 -0500, "Morgans" wrote: I just killfile them. I killfile top-posters, too. It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were trying to say. -- Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy. |
In article qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04, mike regish wrote:
That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too difficult for you? The problem with top posting is: (a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation bottom-to-top (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant messages. Now you might say 'well, 50K - big deal' but replicated across tens of thousands of news servers... not to mention most people STILL are not on broadband and quote a few still pay for dialup by the minute. A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for). -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote: In article qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04, mike regish wrote: That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too difficult for you? The problem with top posting is: (a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation bottom-to-top (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant messages. Now you might say 'well, 50K - big deal' but replicated across tens of thousands of news servers... not to mention most people STILL are not on broadband and quote a few still pay for dialup by the minute. A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for). And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? |
In article ,
Robert Morien wrote: And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? yes. -- Bob Noel |
In article , Robert Morien wrote:
In article , Dylan Smith wrote: snip A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for). And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective bits and comment right underneath the point you're replying to), by the very nature of the activity there is an incentive to trim the quotations down. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:58:34 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote: In article qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04, mike regish wrote: That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too difficult for you? The problem with top posting is: (a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation bottom-to-top (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant messages. Now you might say 'well, 50K - big deal' but replicated across tens of thousands of news servers... not to mention most people STILL are not on broadband and quote a few still pay for dialup by the minute. A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for). And bottom posting doesn't? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:44:23 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote: In article , Robert Morien wrote: In article , Dylan Smith wrote: snip and again Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective That I just don't believe. Many times and even in this group I've scrolled down through pages of text to find a two or three line answer to the whole thing. OTOH I've never forgotten to snip the irrelevant text like a lot of posters. :-)) The problem with the top posted one liner is you need to look to see if that was the only comment. and again Although this appears to be bottom posted, it was really a piece out of the middle. (selective quoting) with the whole bottom snipped. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
In article ,
Bob Noel wrote: In article , Robert Morien wrote: And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? yes. You must post the location of this paradise you live in. |
In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote: In article , Robert Morien wrote: In article , Dylan Smith wrote: snip A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for). And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective bits and comment right underneath the point you're replying to), by the very nature of the activity there is an incentive to trim the quotations down. You answer with a definitive yes and then four words in say "if". |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:58:34 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote: In article qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04, mike regish wrote: That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too difficult for you? The problem with top posting is: (a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation bottom-to-top (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they are quoting. Pure crap -- I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not much more than three lines at the end. Shove that "99.9%" back up your ass where you found it. |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:44:23 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote: In article , Robert Morien wrote: In article , Dylan Smith wrote: snip A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for). And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective bits and comment right underneath the point you're replying to), by the very nature of the activity there is an incentive to trim the quotations down. Incentive doesn't mean crap. I often top post, but still trim the irrelevant stuff. Because I'm just a nice guy. I also delete the ten sets of addrresses on jokes forwarded to me and re-wrap the lines before sending them to anyone else. |
In article ,
Robert Morien wrote: And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...? yes. You must post the location of this paradise you live in. The newsgroup that shall not be mentioned, other than it used to have an FAQ that was exactly 666 lines long :-) -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
In article , wrote:
(b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they are quoting. Pure crap -- I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not much more than three lines at the end. Shove that "99.9%" back up your ass where you found it. Why so hostile? Would it really have hurt you that much to say: "I don't think that's true - I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not much more than three lines up the end" instead of spouting a bunch of invective? I really have to wonder what's happened to the concept of "netiquette". This has been a very long September indeed. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:41:55 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
wrote: Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "John A. Weeks III" on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0600 spoke: Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central Africa and the South Pole. Usenet is a sub-set of the internet. Without the internet, there is no usenet. Wrong. you need to re-read your history of the internet. Rich -- An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes. --R.A.Heinlein |
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:10:20 GMT, Richard Thomas
wrote: On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:41:55 GMT, Never anonymous Bud wrote: Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "John A. Weeks III" on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0600 spoke: Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central Africa and the South Pole. Usenet is a sub-set of the internet. Without the internet, there is no usenet. Wrong. you need to re-read your history of the internet. Rich It might not have started out that way, but it's pretty much the case today. Theere are very few Fidonet nodes actively distributing Usenet traffic these days, I'm pretty sure. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:47 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com