O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations
 

Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"

Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
================================================== ==========

"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."

"Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"

"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
================================================== ==========
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
yourself immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
================================================== ==========
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
got the little Fokker in sight."
================================================== ==========
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
was your last known position?"

Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
================================================== ==========
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
long roll out after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
================================================== ==========

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
"a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
approach."
================================================== ==========

Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
was the problem?"

"The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
pilot."
================================================== ==========

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
overheard the following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
in Germany. Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war."
================================================== ==========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."

================================================== ========

One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
make it all by yourself?"

The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
================================================== ==========

While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

Dave

Craig Lewis wrote:
Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"

Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
================================================== ==========

"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."

"Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"

"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
================================================== ==========
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
yourself immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
================================================== ==========
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
got the little Fokker in sight."
================================================== ==========
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
was your last known position?"

Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
================================================== ==========
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
long roll out after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
================================================== ==========

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
"a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
approach."
================================================== ==========

Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
was the problem?"

"The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
pilot."
================================================== ==========

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
overheard the following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
in Germany. Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war."
================================================== ==========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."

================================================== ========

One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
make it all by yourself?"

The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
================================================== ==========

While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:53:20 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

Dave

And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who can't be
bothered to trim their quotes?

"Dave S" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

That's the 18th time this year I've seen that retort...just for those who DO
know HOW to Google...but don't.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Thanks!
This is the first time I've seen them.
I enjoyed it.
Please feel free to post!

LMAO...Thanks these were really funny. Mind if I use some of these in my
next trek ?
Especially the one about irate controller. Some big airports hate small
crafts buzzing into their routine and have a habit of being dry with us
amateur pilots.
Thanks for sharing.

"Craig Lewis" wrote in message
...
Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"

Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
================================================== ==========

"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."

"Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"

"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
================================================== ==========
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
yourself immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
================================================== ==========
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
got the little Fokker in sight."
================================================== ==========
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
was your last known position?"

Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
================================================== ==========
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
long roll out after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
================================================== ==========

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
"a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
approach."
================================================== ==========

Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
was the problem?"

"The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
pilot."
================================================== ==========

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
overheard the following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
in Germany. Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war."
================================================== ==========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."

================================================== ========

One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
make it all by yourself?"

The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
================================================== ==========

While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

Craig Lewis wrote in message ...

Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Old but still funny. Lest anybody be fooled, however, these are NOT
"actual exchanges between airline pilots and control towers around the
world". They are fictional.

Nope.. actually I dont. Thanks for asking though.

Dave


Bob Ward wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:53:20 GMT, Dave S
wrote:


Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

Dave


And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who can't be
bothered to trim their quotes?

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
"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:53:20 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

Dave

And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who can't be
bothered to trim their quotes?

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

We will let the Mythbusters settle that matter shall we...LOL
"n0apla2l" wrote in message
om...
Craig Lewis wrote in message
...

Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Old but still funny. Lest anybody be fooled, however, these are NOT
"actual exchanges between airline pilots and control towers around the
world". They are fictional.

Top posting is not inherently enefarious, but like any tool, it can be used for good or for evil. In cases where the response requires context, it is
good to give a hint of the context before the reply by quoting a well selected part of the original post, and posting your reply below. Often the
post has already been read (though forgotten) by the reader, but often it has not yet reached the reader and the context is essential or your own
point gets lost.

However, if your post stands on its own even in the absence of context, then it is often better to top post. Those who want additional context can
see it below, but most people will not need this context and can just move on or reply after seeing your words. Most people will not need this
context =because= your post is self-contained; if your post is not self contained then obviously this doesn't apply in that case.

I suppose that problems arise because one =thinks= their post is self contained, (after all, the poster knows the context) but it in fact is not. I
won't venture a guess as to how many people think how many posts are how far past that line, except to say that it appears that enough do to sustain
this usenet perpetual motion machine.

Never confuse motion with action.
Never confuse action with results.

And never confuse results with what you wanted in the first place. :)

Jose
(note - I only follow rec.aviation.piloting, of the 3 groups I replied to)

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


--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:47:01 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote:

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

The normal sequence of reading, processing, and understanding the
conversation.

The only place where the question is normally seen after the answer is
on Jeopardy - and you're no Alex Trebeck

ShawnD2112 wrote:

I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
What am I missing?

Two reasons:

One, as a thread progresses, a mix of top and bottom posting becomes
confusing when someone wants to look back through the quoted material.
Since most posters to newsgroups bottom post, that is the de facto
standard method. Email users typically top post, so that becomes the
standard for email.

Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
posts under control.

Dave S wrote:
Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

Dave



I laugh every time. I don't care how many times it is posted.

The bad news about getting older: I forget that I have already told a
joke to my friends.
The good news about getting older: My friends have forgotten the punch
lines.


The good news about alzhimeres:

There are never any reruns.
Every joke is a new joke.
You get to go to bed with a new woman every night.

ShawnD2112 wrote:

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?


Not saying please or thank you is not evil either but it IS bad manners
and goes against established protocals that have been around for many,
many years.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:39:13 GMT, m pautz
proclaimed:

The good news about alzhimeres:

There are never any reruns.
Every joke is a new joke.
You get to go to bed with a new woman every night.


The really nice thing about Alzheimers is you get to hide your own
Easter eggs.

Right. Got all that, guys, thanks. I guess I've always just posted the way
Outlook Express defaults, which seems to be top posting. Can I change that
default or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?

I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a thread,
as I've already read the original post and just want to read someone's
reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.

Cheers,
Shawn
"Joachim Feise" wrote in message
...
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

"ShawnD2112" wrote

Can I change that
default

Nope

or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?

Yep


I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a
thread,
as I've already read the original post and just want to read someone's
reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.

Cheers,
Shawn


Get rid of all but you want to have the next reader to see, to refresh his
memory, and what you are replying to.

See how I did it? Clear to everyone. And shortened.
--
Jim in NC


---
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: 11/11/2004

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:34:39 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote:

Right. Got all that, guys, thanks. I guess I've always just posted the way
Outlook Express defaults, which seems to be top posting. Can I change that
default or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?

I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a thread,
as I've already read the original post and just want to read someone's
reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.

Cheers,
Shawn
"Joachim Feise" wrote in message
...
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



I wish wee could say you'll be missed, but that remains to be seen.

"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:34:39 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote:

Right. Got all that, guys, thanks. I guess I've always just posted the
way
Outlook Express defaults, which seems to be top posting. Can I change
that
default or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?



I wish wee could say you'll be missed, but that remains to be seen.


?

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

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 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

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.

M

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
ShawnD2112 wrote:

I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
What am I missing?

Two reasons:

One, as a thread progresses, a mix of top and bottom posting becomes
confusing when someone wants to look back through the quoted material.
Since most posters to newsgroups bottom post, that is the de facto
standard method. Email users typically top post, so that becomes the
standard for email.

Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
posts under control.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:01:21 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:14:49 GMT, Bob Ward
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:47:01 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote:

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

The normal sequence of reading, processing, and understanding the
conversation.

The only place where the question is normally seen after the answer is
on Jeopardy - and you're no Alex Trebeck


I assume, then, that in a conversation, you fully repeat the
prior speaker's points before adding your own comment at the bottom.


I might summarize the conversation for someone who just joined in, but
you're being an asshole just because you can.

Perhaps you're not aware that email and usenet are two different forms
of communication, with different propigation rates. Not everyone has
just read the same missive that you are responding to. It's easier to
killfile you than to expect you to follow the conventions adhered to
by others.

I just killfile them.

Now, tell me, what was the above comment saying what would cause me to kill
file them?

Because someone top posts? Because people won't use proper English? Or is
it the lack of punctuation some people use?

Top posting, as you see, does not do well at making it clear what the
comment the poster is answering. Also, if you have many folks that are
killfiled involved in the conversation, or your response is more than a day
or so old, it is sometime very tricky figuring out who you are responding
to.

There is also the fact that 90% plus do not top post. Is the rest of the
world wrong?
--
Jim in NC

"M.S." wrote in message
...
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.

M

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
ShawnD2112 wrote:

I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
What am I missing?

Two reasons:

One, as a thread progresses, a mix of top and bottom posting becomes
confusing when someone wants to look back through the quoted material.
Since most posters to newsgroups bottom post, that is the de facto
standard method. Email users typically top post, so that becomes the
standard for email.

Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
posts under control.




---
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: 11/15/2004

Back a few wars ago, a F-86 Sabre turns off the active and comes
nose to nose with a C-124 Globemaster on the taxiway.

F-86 jockey radios tower and asks "What is the C-124's intentions?"

The Globemaster pilot starts the clamshell nose doors opening,
then keys the mike and says "I'm going to eat you."

Craig Lewis wrote:
Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"

Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
================================================== ==========

"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."

"Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"

"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
================================================== ==========
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
yourself immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
================================================== ==========
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
got the little Fokker in sight."
================================================== ==========
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
was your last known position?"

Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
================================================== ==========
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
long roll out after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
================================================== ==========

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
"a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
approach."
================================================== ==========

Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
was the problem?"

"The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
pilot."
================================================== ==========

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
overheard the following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
in Germany. Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war."
================================================== ==========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."

================================================== ========

One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
make it all by yourself?"

The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
================================================== ==========

While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

Me too. I top post to people who don't like it.

Mark wrote:

Good. Add me to your list. That way you won't have to read anything that
makes sense and flows properly.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:43:06 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:30:47 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


I just killfile them.

I killfile top-posters, too.

"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


--
Jennifer

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote

I killfile top-posters, too.

It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
trying to say.

I was not really saying that I kilfile top posters. I was using another
post to illustrate how illogical top posting is, but I usually struggle
through, unless the content makes it "unworthwhile".
--
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: 11/15/2004

Illogical? Nope, not really. What's illogical is how upset people get over
it. BTW, all but one of the responders to my post top-posted their replies,
and apparently nobody (including myself, of course) seem to have had any
problems understanding.

You want to bottom-post, go ahead. I want to top-post, I will. If this is
the biggest problem people have in their life, they are VERY lucky people!

M

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote

I killfile top-posters, too.

It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
trying to say.

I was not really saying that I kilfile top posters. I was using another
post to illustrate how illogical top posting is, but I usually struggle
through, unless the content makes it "unworthwhile".
--
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: 11/15/2004

If I understand this correctly then your previous messages was a 'top post',
as is the one I'm sending right now. Is that correct?

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with this type of posting as 1)
the reader does not have to scroll through god knows how much text to read
the new reply that he clicked on, and 2) if they failed to read the
original or have forgotten it, they can then scroll down to catch up.

What seems particularly annoying to me is when people post the original at
the top of their reply and I have to scroll through all that just to get to
their response. If the original was only a line or two, it's no big deal,
but often it goes on and on and it gets tiresome and annoying to have to
scroll through it over and over with each response.

There are a few names that I recognize on this board who are notorious for
doing this and when I recognize them, I simply mark them as read and move
right past them without reading. I'm curious why people think this is
necessary or helpful. Is it something with the way that some readers are set
up?

I have read this newsgroup for many years and I cant recall ever forgetting
what a topic was about once I've seen the topic. I suppose if I did forget,
all I'd have to do is go back to the original and read it (once) to refresh
my memory, not each time someone replies.

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.

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
============================================


"Jose" wrote in message
om...
Top posting is not inherently enefarious, but like any tool, it can be
used for good or for evil. In cases where the response requires context, it
is
good to give a hint of the context before the reply by quoting a well
selected part of the original post, and posting your reply below. Often the
post has already been read (though forgotten) by the reader, but often it
has not yet reached the reader and the context is essential or your own
point gets lost.

However, if your post stands on its own even in the absence of context,
then it is often better to top post. Those who want additional context can
see it below, but most people will not need this context and can just move
on or reply after seeing your words. Most people will not need this
context =because= your post is self-contained; if your post is not self
contained then obviously this doesn't apply in that case.

I suppose that problems arise because one =thinks= their post is self
contained, (after all, the poster knows the context) but it in fact is not.
I
won't venture a guess as to how many people think how many posts are how
far past that line, except to say that it appears that enough do to sustain
this usenet perpetual motion machine.

Never confuse motion with action.
Never confuse action with results.

And never confuse results with what you wanted in the first place. :)

Jose
(note - I only follow rec.aviation.piloting, of the 3 groups I replied to)

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


--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"PJ Hunt" wrote:

If I understand this correctly then your previous messages was a 'top
post', as is the one I'm sending right now. Is that correct? [...]

Indeed.

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.

PJ,

your message nicely points to the core of the argument. In general, top-
posting reverses the normal flow of a (usenet) discussion and thus should
be avoided whenever possible. However if people cannot be bothered to trim
the quoted message down to the essential parts, then sifting through (long)
bottom-posts becomes even more annoying than reading top-posts.

Greetings,
Markus

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:18:12 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

ShawnD2112 wrote:

I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
What am I missing?

Two reasons:

smip

Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
posts under control.

Dreamer.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:14:55 -0900, "PJ Hunt"
wrote:


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.

That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.

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
============================================


"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:14:55 -0900, "PJ Hunt"
wrote:


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.

That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

[Previous text and attributions tidied somewhat, but sequence
deliberately retained]

PJ Hunt wrote:

Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.

Bob Ward wrote:
PJ Hunt wrote:

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.

That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

Do you see what has happened here?

Simplifying somewhat, the structure is something like:

Comment 2

Original text

Comment 1

Yuck!

It is clearly preferable to maintain a *consistent* pattern, either
*always* placing new text before old ("top-posting"), or *always*
placing new text after old ("bottom-posting").

For *very good* historical reasons, the convention on Usenet is to
place new text *after* the old text on which you are commenting,
snipping out *surplus* old text and, when commenting on a number of
fragments, placing each comment immediately after the relevant bit
of the old text.

This way, reading an article from top to bottom should make sense
in a question-and-answer kind of way. Readers who are sufficiently
familiar with the thread can skip over the quoted text, but it will
generally be available for reference simply by looking a little way
up the screen, rather as one sometimes looks back at the previous
paragraph in a book.

*One* of the reasons for quoting and commenting in this way is that
Usenet articles are *not* guaranteed to arrive at a newsserver in
the "correct" order - heck, they are not *guaranteed* to arrive at
all - and propagation delays can be quite substantial: Google take
their time even now, and once upon a time delays measured in *days*
were common.

In the early days of Usenet, *slow* and *expensive* net connections
were very common, which made snipping out excess quoted material a
Very Good Thing. Things aren't *as bad* these days, but some users
are still on slowish connections where extra bytes cost extra bucks,
so good snippage is still very good practice.

Usenet and email are two *very* different media: Usenet is a form of
*broadcast* medium where readers often find themselves dealing with
fragments of *many* threads at once; email is basically a one-to-one
medium (yes, spammers abuse it as a broadcast medium) in which you
can be far more certain that your correspondent is already familiar
with the topic of your reply, so that *appending* the previous text
for reference makes more sense. That said, interleaving old and new
text in email responses can be very useful - particularly where the
discussion *is* a series of questions and answers.

This is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I hope you can now
see why "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

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.

Much more convenient...


"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
[Previous text and attributions tidied somewhat, but sequence
deliberately retained]

PJ Hunt wrote:

Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.

Bob Ward wrote:
PJ Hunt wrote:

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.

That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

Do you see what has happened here?

Simplifying somewhat, the structure is something like:

Comment 2

Original text

Comment 1

Yuck!

It is clearly preferable to maintain a *consistent* pattern, either
*always* placing new text before old ("top-posting"), or *always*
placing new text after old ("bottom-posting").

For *very good* historical reasons, the convention on Usenet is to
place new text *after* the old text on which you are commenting,
snipping out *surplus* old text and, when commenting on a number of
fragments, placing each comment immediately after the relevant bit
of the old text.

This way, reading an article from top to bottom should make sense
in a question-and-answer kind of way. Readers who are sufficiently
familiar with the thread can skip over the quoted text, but it will
generally be available for reference simply by looking a little way
up the screen, rather as one sometimes looks back at the previous
paragraph in a book.

*One* of the reasons for quoting and commenting in this way is that
Usenet articles are *not* guaranteed to arrive at a newsserver in
the "correct" order - heck, they are not *guaranteed* to arrive at
all - and propagation delays can be quite substantial: Google take
their time even now, and once upon a time delays measured in *days*
were common.

In the early days of Usenet, *slow* and *expensive* net connections
were very common, which made snipping out excess quoted material a
Very Good Thing. Things aren't *as bad* these days, but some users
are still on slowish connections where extra bytes cost extra bucks,
so good snippage is still very good practice.

Usenet and email are two *very* different media: Usenet is a form of
*broadcast* medium where readers often find themselves dealing with
fragments of *many* threads at once; email is basically a one-to-one
medium (yes, spammers abuse it as a broadcast medium) in which you
can be far more certain that your correspondent is already familiar
with the topic of your reply, so that *appending* the previous text
for reference makes more sense. That said, interleaving old and new
text in email responses can be very useful - particularly where the
discussion *is* a series of questions and answers.

This is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I hope you can now
see why "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:23:29 -0600, "Bill Denton"
proclaimed:
Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

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.

Much more convenient...


Answer: Because it disrupts the flow of thought.
Question: Why is top posting such a pain in the ass?

It's just like paper files.

Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on
top.

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!

Dave,



Bill Denton wrote:

Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

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.

Much more convenient...

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
[Previous text and attributions tidied somewhat, but sequence
deliberately retained]

PJ Hunt wrote:

Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.

Bob Ward wrote:
PJ Hunt wrote:

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.

That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

Do you see what has happened here?

Simplifying somewhat, the structure is something like:

Comment 2

Original text

Comment 1

Yuck!

It is clearly preferable to maintain a *consistent* pattern, either
*always* placing new text before old ("top-posting"), or *always*
placing new text after old ("bottom-posting").

For *very good* historical reasons, the convention on Usenet is to
place new text *after* the old text on which you are commenting,
snipping out *surplus* old text and, when commenting on a number of
fragments, placing each comment immediately after the relevant bit
of the old text.

This way, reading an article from top to bottom should make sense
in a question-and-answer kind of way. Readers who are sufficiently
familiar with the thread can skip over the quoted text, but it will
generally be available for reference simply by looking a little way
up the screen, rather as one sometimes looks back at the previous
paragraph in a book.

*One* of the reasons for quoting and commenting in this way is that
Usenet articles are *not* guaranteed to arrive at a newsserver in
the "correct" order - heck, they are not *guaranteed* to arrive at
all - and propagation delays can be quite substantial: Google take
their time even now, and once upon a time delays measured in *days*
were common.

In the early days of Usenet, *slow* and *expensive* net connections
were very common, which made snipping out excess quoted material a
Very Good Thing. Things aren't *as bad* these days, but some users
are still on slowish connections where extra bytes cost extra bucks,
so good snippage is still very good practice.

Usenet and email are two *very* different media: Usenet is a form of
*broadcast* medium where readers often find themselves dealing with
fragments of *many* threads at once; email is basically a one-to-one
medium (yes, spammers abuse it as a broadcast medium) in which you
can be far more certain that your correspondent is already familiar
with the topic of your reply, so that *appending* the previous text
for reference makes more sense. That said, interleaving old and new
text in email responses can be very useful - particularly where the
discussion *is* a series of questions and answers.

This is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I hope you can now
see why "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.