In article <[email protected]>, patrick conroy
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Top, bottom, doggy - it's all about variety.
Sex, doggy style: He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead.
Gerry
MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
> In article <JA4Xd.44051$r55.10321@attbi_s52>, Bob <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more
messages to
> >get to a reply.
That is why the quoted text should be edited down to only that which
is relevant to the reply.
> >Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your
opinion, and
> >I'm entitled to mine!
Opinion is like flatulence. Everbody has it and everybody thinks
the other person's stinks worse.
>
> The difference between your 'opinion' and my 'opinion' is that bottom
> posting (my opinion) has been formalized as 'correct' etiquette in
> RFC1855, whereas top posting has not. I know we're all supposed to be
> 'empowered to be individuals' in today's society, but there's
something to
> be said for standards and cooperation (without which there'd be no
> Internet at all).
"Without rules we'd all be swinging from trees flinging our crap
at each other." -- Red Forman
--
FF
Tom Watson wrote:
>You only get points for making good guesses, not betting on sure
>things.
sigh...
>watson - who thought he would try both top and bottom posting in the
>same message, just to see what it would be like - Ooooh, It makes me
>feel soooo wicked.
UA100, who usually follows conformity but loves to watch
panties twist when others don't...
Mon, Mar 7, 2005, 10:28pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Bob) claims:
It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages
to get to a reply.
Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion,
and I'm entitled to mine!
As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
NO, the real PITA is when people do not snip.
JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
> get to a reply.
> Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion, and
> I'm entitled to mine!
> As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
So you don't like people who don't trim un-needed content. I agree.
I also think that having answers after questions makes sense.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:06:31 -0800, Teamcasa <[email protected]> wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, pick something - top, bottom or if the subject line
> has the question, delete all and just answer. In the long run - who really
> cares?
When you're trying to have a conversation, both context, and flow,
are important. If your goal is to make pronouncements and/or just
have the last word, making yourself easy to respond to I suppose isn't
a priority.
If usenet is about effective communication, then a conversational,
"question then answer" style is the most logical.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:00:28 -0600, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Oh boy. I can't wait to spend endless hours following
> up/reading the response to this one. Just say (tmPL) it'll
> be the usual suspects.
>
> Wake me when it's over.
I _know_ that Forte lets you killfile by subject. Or sender.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> If usenet is about effective communication, then a conversational,
> "question then answer" style is the most logical.
>
And it's been the Usenet convention since Usenet began - probably long
before the OP ever saw a computer :-).
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:09:23 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> If usenet is about effective communication, then a conversational,
>> "question then answer" style is the most logical.
>>
> And it's been the Usenet convention since Usenet began - probably long
> before the OP ever saw a computer :-).
Dammit Larry, you keep agreeing with me. This is way past scary.
Um...MaryAnn, or Ginger?
This may be a "perfect example" but it's kind of irrelevant in our =
"imperfect" world.
99.999% of posters, be they top, bottom or middle (IMHO the worst kind ) =
posters do not snip, and never will.
So now, all of us when following a thread must scroll down to the meat =
on the majority of posts (since bottom posts dominate), wading thru =
maybe 3 days worth of posts which our eyes, if not our brain, have now =
seen umteen times. What a waste of time and energy to say nothing of the =
wear and tear on arthritic fingers.
Why don't we just chaulk up the concept of snipping as a nice =
theoretical but impractical plan and all start top posting.
And no snipping so if someone wants to reread things, its all there.
I nominate Bob, the OP, for moderator.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in =
message news:[email protected]...
> Bruce Barnett wrote:
> > ALWAYS trim posts. That's the polite thing to do.
> > It takes an extra 10 seconds to do this.
> > 100,000 readers deserve 10 seconds of effort, right?
>=20
>=20
> Your reply is a perfect example of how a posting should be formatted. =
The=20
> purpose of a quotation is to allow a point of reference to previously =
written=20
> material; it is not supposed to be an archive of an entire =
conversation. Bottom=20
> posting allows for a more normal flow of conversation, but it's only =
effective=20
> when folks take the trouble to trim the quotation down to a paragraph =
or two.=20
> Nobody wants to scroll down through reams of material for a one line =
reply.
>=20
> Top posting makes the flow awkward and usually the top poster doesn't =
bother=20
> trimming any of his quotation either. A pox on his house!
>=20
> Anyway, you get a gold star for doing it the way it should be done.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>=20
> [email protected]
>=20
>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:57:27 -0500, Treetops <[email protected]> wrote:
> This may be a "perfect example" but it's kind of irrelevant in our "imperfect" world.
> 99.999% of posters, be they top, bottom or middle (IMHO the worst kind ) posters do not snip, and never will.
Your estimate is a bit high.
> So now, all of us when following a thread must scroll down to the meat on the majority of posts (since bottom posts dominate), wading thru maybe 3 days worth of posts which our eyes, if not our brain, have now seen umteen times. What a waste of time and energy to say nothing of the wear and tear on arthritic fingers.
Can those fingers hit "enter" every once in a while? Your line length is
at 240 characters for that last one. Horizontal scrolling is even more
annoying that top-posters.
> Why don't we just chaulk up the concept of snipping as a nice theoretical but impractical plan and all start top posting.
That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'd like to quote one of
Mortimer's comments in the context of your response, but you've got
the conversation all upside-down now.
> And no snipping so if someone wants to reread things, its all there.
And I notice you didn't snip anything either.
> I nominate Bob, the OP, for moderator.
On that, of course, we agree.
On 9 Mar 2005 01:50:14 GMT, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Zimmerman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bottom posting wastes people's time by scrolling thru huge texts just
>> to find a few words.
>
> Bottom posting doesn't people's waste time if people TRIM THEIR POSTS.
Right, and it allows people following up to _that_ response to put
everything in the correct flow and context.
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 05:54:54 GMT, Tim Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And finally, it's completely unnecessary to quote people's "signatures" at
> the ends of their postings since they just take up space.
That, sometimes, is the fault of the person with the sig file. Most
newsreaders (even Outhouse) will recognize "-- " on a line by itself as a
sig delimiter. If someone just uses "--", then it's something that looks
like, but is not, a legal sig delimiter.
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:25:35 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>I _know_ that Forte lets you killfile by subject. Or sender.
>
> See what I mean?
Like I said. I don't understand why people go out of their way to
read a thread they know they don't want to see, and then complain
about it.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:57:27 -0500, Treetops <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This may be a "perfect example" but it's kind of irrelevant in our
"imperfect" world.
> > 99.999% of posters, be they top, bottom or middle (IMHO the worst
kind ) posters do not snip, and never will.
>
> Your estimate is a bit high.
OK so lets compromise and make it 50%. Still a lot of non-snippers
forcing
a lot of scrolling.
So what's your magic solution for converting 50% of the world's posters
to the art of snipping?
>
> > So now, all of us when following a thread must scroll down to the
meat on the majority of posts (since bottom posts dominate), wading thru
maybe 3 days worth of posts which our eyes, if not our brain, have now
seen umteen times. What a waste of time and energy to say nothing of the
wear and tear on arthritic fingers.
>
> Can those fingers hit "enter" every once in a while? Your line length
is
> at 240 characters for that last one. Horizontal scrolling is even
more
> annoying that top-posters.
I agree. Me bad. Hopefully I fixed it.
>
> > Why don't we just chaulk up the concept of snipping as a nice
theoretical but impractical plan and all start top posting.
>
> That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'd like to quote one of
> Mortimer's comments in the context of your response, but you've got
> the conversation all upside-down now.
Yeaaaa! Whats my prize?
Let me help you with quoting Mortimer; he said something about saving
the world's bandwidth, speeding up the internet, eliminating the
worldwide
shipment of spam, and mass education in snipping skills. Hope I got that
right. You might check with him but he may be hard to reach. Last time
I saw him he was on a horse chasing after some guy called Don Quixote
looking for windmills.
>
> > And no snipping so if someone wants to reread things, its all
there.
>
> And I notice you didn't snip anything either.
Gee. Guess I'm part of the 50%.
OTOH I just wasn't sure how much or where to snip. It"s so complicated:
Should I trim or snip?
What is a reasonable trim?
Is it rude to snip somebodies signature?
Is the flow and context still intact?
Have I changed the meaning altogether?
Should I leave the untrimmed part from the previous 4 posts there?
I'm already in trouble with the top posting police. I just didn't want
to also
get in trouble with the snip, eerrr trim, police too.
So I wimped out and didn't snip.
>
> > I nominate Bob, the OP, for moderator.
>
> On that, of course, we agree.
Oh oh. That was only a joke!
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:36:58 -0500, Treetops <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:57:27 -0500, Treetops <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > This may be a "perfect example" but it's kind of irrelevant in our
> "imperfect" world.
>> > 99.999% of posters, be they top, bottom or middle (IMHO the worst
> kind ) posters do not snip, and never will.
>>
>> Your estimate is a bit high.
>
> OK so lets compromise and make it 50%. Still a lot of non-snippers
> forcing
> a lot of scrolling.
> So what's your magic solution for converting 50% of the world's posters
> to the art of snipping?
"Hey, did you know that if you'd trim out some of that stuff we've
all read over and over, and if you put your answers _after_ the
question, that everything works better?" type messages.
>> > So now, all of us when following a thread must scroll down to the
> meat on the majority of posts (since bottom posts dominate), wading thru
> maybe 3 days worth of posts which our eyes, if not our brain, have now
> seen umteen times. What a waste of time and energy to say nothing of the
> wear and tear on arthritic fingers.
>>
>> Can those fingers hit "enter" every once in a while? Your line length
> is
>> at 240 characters for that last one. Horizontal scrolling is even
> more
>> annoying that top-posters.
>
> I agree. Me bad. Hopefully I fixed it.
Looks better, it's more like 90 now.
>> > Why don't we just chaulk up the concept of snipping as a nice
> theoretical but impractical plan and all start top posting.
>>
>> That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'd like to quote one of
>> Mortimer's comments in the context of your response, but you've got
>> the conversation all upside-down now.
> Yeaaaa! Whats my prize?
A "Gore/Lieberman" sticker, I think.
> Let me help you with quoting Mortimer; he said something about saving
> the world's bandwidth, speeding up the internet, eliminating the
> worldwide
> shipment of spam, and mass education in snipping skills. Hope I got that
> right.
See, but if you had quoted him effectively, it'd be right up there,
7 or 8 lines up, above your "> Let me help".
> You might check with him but he may be hard to reach. Last time
> I saw him he was on a horse chasing after some guy called Don Quixote
> looking for windmills.
Well, when there are people who say "Wow, what a mess, here, let me
make it worse", ...
>> > And no snipping so if someone wants to reread things, its all
> there.
>>
>> And I notice you didn't snip anything either.
>
> Gee. Guess I'm part of the 50%.
Apparently.
> OTOH I just wasn't sure how much or where to snip. It"s so complicated:
> Should I trim or snip?
> What is a reasonable trim?
It depends. "Include enough context so people know who you're talking to
and what you're talking about" is a good guideline that I've seen for
a long time.
> Is it rude to snip somebodies signature?
Never.
> Is the flow and context still intact?
Not if you turn it upside-down.
> Have I changed the meaning altogether?
If you have, they'll correct you.
> Should I leave the untrimmed part from the previous 4 posts there?
Probably not. Anything more than two or three deep is rarely needed,
unless there's a debate about a fine or subtle point of something
rather deep.
> I'm already in trouble with the top posting police. I just didn't want
> to also
> get in trouble with the snip, eerrr trim, police too.
> So I wimped out and didn't snip.
I've never seen "lazily didn't bother to..." written that way, but
whatever.
>> > I nominate Bob, the OP, for moderator.
>>
>> On that, of course, we agree.
>
> Oh oh. That was only a joke!
Yes, there's a lot of that going on in this sub-part of the discussion.
Which is left 4-deep because context makes sense that way.
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:56:08 -0600, Unisaw A-100 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:58:50 -0600, Unisaw A-100 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:57:25 GMT, Unisaw A-100 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Should I be flattered?
That was more of a "pot...kettle...black" kind of thing.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:13:08 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Reasonable trimming should allow enough context to either let you know
what'ts going on, or lead you to look back. If somebody is not
interested enough to check out the thread or already have been
following it, then their importance to the thread and other posters is
minimal.
>Well actually I think that each post being answered to should be considered
>as to how to answer. Trimming often means having to look at another post to
>understand the response. Many think it is impolite to not have everything
>right there in front of them.
>
As far as I'm concerned, pick something - top, bottom or if the subject line
has the question, delete all and just answer. In the long run - who really
cares?
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, "Bob" <[email protected]> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Please place
OT:Top posting is best
in front of the topic of messages like this.
>It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
>get to a reply.
>Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion, and
>I'm entitled to mine!
>As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected] wrote:
> Opinion is like flatulence. Everbody has it and everybody thinks
> the other person's stinks worse.
Not true. I've had a gastric bypass and ever since mine is carcenogenic to any
other poor soul caught in the blast. I recognize, acknowledge, and revel in
that knowledge. After all, anything worth doing is worth doing well.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:24:31 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>Sex, doggy style: He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead.
And the problem is....?
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d0lkom$edg$3>
Bottom posting doesn't people's waste time if people TRIM THEIR POSTS.
And then there are those that do not proof read what they type. See, none
of us are perfect and we all are capable of making mistakes. I for one am
guilty of all mistakes. LOL wondering what you really meant to say. ;~)
"Bob" <[email protected]> writes
> It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more
>messages to get to a reply. Some of you think it's ridiculous to top
>post, but that's your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine! As Bill
>Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
Most top posters tend to quote the entire posting.
First, we shouldn't quote the entire posting that we are responding
to because many people (especially outside the United States) have to
pay for their Internet access by the minute and/or by the amount of data
transferred.
Secondly, we shouldn't put our comments above the quoted material
because people who aren't directly involved in a discussion themselves
usually follow the logic more easily when they can read the material in
more-or-less chronological order.
And finally, it's completely unnecessary to quote people's "signatures" at
the ends of their postings since they just take up space.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
>> get to a reply.
>> Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion,
>> and
>> I'm entitled to mine!
>> As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
>
> So you don't like people who don't trim un-needed content. I agree.
> I also think that having answers after questions makes sense.
Change of heart I see. Several months you chastised me because that is what
I did. In fact some content should be trimmed all together if it pertains
to the poster and not everyone in general.
"Teamcasa" wrote
> As far as I'm concerned, pick something - top, bottom or if the subject line
>has the question, delete all and just answer. In the long run - who really cares?
Bottom posting wastes people's time by scrolling thru huge texts just
to find a few words. Top posting wastes disk space on news
servers and many people are going to scroll down to the bottom,
wondering whether you have anything more to say. These problems
are multiplied when you quote an entire posting that in turn quotes an
entire posting.
--
The "--" means to anything under it will be deleted by some news
server. Here are more tips.
If you're responding to more than one point, you should intersperse
your comments among sections of quoted text, in point-counterpoint
style. Put a blank line between each section, to help the reader
distinguish them.
Effective "trimming" is a skill that improves with practice. If someone
complains, look closely at what you did and re-evaluate your quoting
strategy. If anyone wants to read your trimmed text they can refer
up the thread.
Attribute quotes properly by placing your comments after the
comment(s) that you are responding to, like this:
Nit Picker wrote:
>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>Palm Guy wrote:
>>>Island Fan wrote:
>>>>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>>>>Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
>>>>>Island?
>>>>
>>>>Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.
>>>
>>>What about Mary Ann and the Professor?
>>
>>They weren't mentioned until the second season.
>
>And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.
Those *poor* people.
But not like this,
Those *poor* people.
Nit Picker wrote:
>And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.
>
>Trivia Wiz wrote:
>>They weren't mentioned until the second season.
>>
>>Palm Guy wrote:
>>>What about Mary Ann and the Professor?
>>>
>>>Island Fan wrote:
>>>>Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.
>>>>
>>>>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>>>>Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
>>>>>Island?
After all, most people agree that it's a Good Thing to use correct
spelling and grammar, but they also agree that spelling, grammar and
formatting all contribute to people's impressions of you, and have at
least some influence on how seriously other people will take you.
In newsgroups, your words are the only "visible" evidence that people
can judge you by. They also affect how easy it is for people to read it,
and understand the points that you're trying to make. In general, people
don't like to be slowed down by scrolling through unnecessary material,
or by having to stop and re-construct the logical sequence.
Reconstructed from a document maintained by Jon Bell
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html#Q1
Treetops wrote:
> Why don't we just chaulk up the concept of snipping as a nice theoretical but
> impractical plan and all start top posting.
> And no snipping so if someone wants to reread things, its all there.
Because there's no need to repost the same material over and over again. What a
waste of bandwidth! Think how much faster the internet would be if it didn't
have to ship spam worldwide. All your suggestion would do is codify the slowing
of the net... and make you feel less guilty since you can't afford the few
seconds necessary to delete redundant information. Or maybe you lack the
skills?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
In article <JA4Xd.44051$r55.10321@attbi_s52>, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
>get to a reply.
>Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion, and
>I'm entitled to mine!
The difference between your 'opinion' and my 'opinion' is that bottom
posting (my opinion) has been formalized as 'correct' etiquette in
RFC1855, whereas top posting has not. I know we're all supposed to be
'empowered to be individuals' in today's society, but there's something to
be said for standards and cooperation (without which there'd be no
Internet at all).
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d0k465$iqu$1
> ALWAYS trim posts. That's the polite thing to do.
> It takes an extra 10 seconds to do this.
> 100,000 readers deserve 10 seconds of effort, right?
Well actually I think that each post being answered to should be considered
as to how to answer. Trimming often means having to look at another post to
understand the response. Many think it is impolite to not have everything
right there in front of them.
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well....
>
> 1) a regular reader doesn't need the entire threat repeated
> each time. It's irritating to see the same thing again.
>
> 2) If you have a threaded news reader, you know the thread anyway.
>
>
> It's really only useful to someone who hasn't been following the thread.
> Besides, there is a second problem. See below, ander I first include the
> line I was responding to.
I agree, but I am a frequent poster and sometimes a target of how I should
do it. Really I don't care if some one wants to read what I have to say or
how they feel I should post. I normally try to make it EQUALLY easy for
both of us but being human that does not always happen.
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JA4Xd.44051$r55.10321@attbi_s52...
> It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
> get to a reply.
> Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion,
> and
> I'm entitled to mine!
The real problem is trimming post, not top or bottom posting.
OTOH, when you take over as moderator, you can insist on top posting.
If you go into the hospital or your doctors office they use acetone to clean
old tape adhesive off.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:57:25 GMT, Unisaw A-100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Should I be flattered?
>
> That was more of a "pot...kettle...black" kind of thing.
>
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JA4Xd.44051$r55.10321@attbi_s52...
> Some of you think it's ridiculous to top
Top, bottom, doggy - it's all about variety.
Hell, Keeter - that weren't even a guess.
That dude is into every single thread, no matter what it's about.
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:25:35 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Dave Hinz wrote:
>>I _know_ that Forte lets you killfile by subject. Or sender.
>
>
>See what I mean?
>
>UA100
You only get points for making good guesses, not betting on sure
things.
watson - who thought he would try both top and bottom posting in the
same message, just to see what it would be like - Ooooh, It makes me
feel soooo wicked.
Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)
"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> IMHO if the message that you are replying to is long and drawn
> out, top post it.
ALWAYS trim posts. That's the polite thing to do.
It takes an extra 10 seconds to do this.
100,000 readers deserve 10 seconds of effort, right?
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Well....
1) a regular reader doesn't need the entire threat repeated
each time. It's irritating to see the same thing again.
2) If you have a threaded news reader, you know the thread anyway.
It's really only useful to someone who hasn't been following the thread.
Besides, there is a second problem. See below, ander I first include the line I was responding to.
Here are the previous postings, in "top-posting order" to this comment.
"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> Well actually I think that each post being answered to should be
> considered as to how to answer. Trimming often means having to look
> at another post to understand the response. Many think it is
> impolite to not have everything right there in front of them.
I wrote:
>>ALWAYS trim posts. That's the polite thing to do.
>>It takes an extra 10 seconds to do this.
>>100,000 readers deserve 10 seconds of effort, right?
Leon writes:
>>> IMHO if the message that you are replying to is long and drawn
>>> out, top post it.
Now that I repeated the thread WITH trimming, in the top-posting form
that you prefer, and I find hard to follow, here is the second problem
with top posting.
3) it makes discussing something point by point very
difficult to follow.
If I wanted to respond to each of your points one at a time, there is
no place to put it, while keeping previous threads intact.
I can do this with bottom posting, and make it readable.
Top posting forces you to scroll through the other posts in the
opposite and natural order of reading, and in fact you have to jump
both up and down to follow the discussion of anything more than a
short response.
You can always DAGS on "top posting"
Sites that are anti-top-posting usually outnumber anti-bottom-posting
sites by 10 to 1, or more.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Treetops" <[email protected]> writes:
> This may be a "perfect example" but it's kind of irrelevant in our
> "imperfect" world. 99.999% of posters, be they top, bottom or
> middle (IMHO the worst kind ) posters do not snip, and never will.
These posters are rude. The way I and most old timers see it, being
rude is anti-social. If we as a group allow this, then we are harming
ourselves for allowing rude behavior.
If we want the group to be more pleasant to read, then we should, as a
group, let others know their behavior is anti-social. If these people
learn and change, great. If not, there are kill files.
Or we can remain silent, and let the anti-social behavior continue,
and therefore encourage more anti-social behavior by accepting it. This
means there is a great chance of talented and knowledgable people
deciding to permanently leave, and we all lose.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Tim Zimmerman" <[email protected]> writes:
> Bottom posting wastes people's time by scrolling thru huge texts just
> to find a few words.
Bottom posting doesn't people's waste time if people TRIM THEIR POSTS.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
(Top Posted For Effect)
I sorta like it when Homey gets into this mode.
It reminds me of those National Geographic flix, when the Moray Eel
is being challenged in his own litttle lair.
The hole looks so innocent...
The diver reaches in...
(The next scene shows homey with a distended belly, obviously not
needing to eat for at least a week...)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Unisaw A-100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I see. So which am I?
>
>UA100
>
>Dave Hinz wrote:
>>That was more of a "pot...kettle...black" kind of thing.
Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 04:50:13 GMT, jo4hn <[email protected]> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
[snip]
>:-)
Tom Watson wrote:
> Hell, Keeter - that weren't even a guess.
>
> That dude is into every single thread, no matter what it's about.
Side >
posting > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:25:35 GMT, Unisaw A100
<[email protected]>
rules! > wrote:
:-) >
>
j4 >>Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>>>I _know_ that Forte lets you killfile by subject. Or sender.
>>
>>
>>See what I mean?
>>
>>UA100
>
>
> You only get points for making good guesses, not betting on sure
> things.
>
>
> watson - who thought he would try both top and bottom posting in the
> same message, just to see what it would be like - Ooooh, It makes me
> feel soooo wicked.
>
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker
>
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JA4Xd.44051$r55.10321@attbi_s52...
> It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
> get to a reply.
> Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion,
> and
> I'm entitled to mine!
> As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
IMHO if the message that you are replying to is long and drawn out, top
post it. If it is short, 7 or 8 lines, bottom post it. If the reply is
some what detailed or personally directed to one person, post "only the
answer". I feel there is no need to repeat everything for single answers.
"Treetops" <[email protected]> wrote
[Zim: Please read my replies after the word Zim:]
OK so lets compromise and make it 50%. Still a lot of non-snippers
forcing
a lot of scrolling.
So what's your magic solution for converting 50% of the world's posters
to the art of snipping?
[Zim: Did you realize that your text are broken probably due to the 'auto-
matic wrap text' feature during send. You can solve this problem by changing
your newsreader settings or previewing your message before sending them.
Did you also realized that deleting the hanging ">" (below) and allowing a
space between your text and the quoted text is helpful to readers?]
>
> > > So now, all of us when following a thread must scroll down to the
meat on the majority of posts (since bottom posts dominate), wading thru
maybe 3 days worth of posts which our eyes, if not our brain, have now
seen umteen times. What a waste of time and energy to say nothing of the
wear and tear on arthritic fingers.
[Zim: The message above was posted without utilizing the word wrap feature
on Treetops part, which could lead to horizontal scrolling. Instead the next
person making the reply did not include the ">." This can lead to confusion. I
don't speak English everyday, but I do read/write English. With a poor message
layout, I will have to struggle to understand Treetops' reply to Dave. So, the
problem is also on my part....Here's a good example of a functional layout.]
Nit Picker wrote:
>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>Palm Guy wrote:
>>>Island Fan wrote:
>>>>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>>>>Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
>>>>>Island?
>>>>Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.
>>>What about Mary Ann and the Professor?
>>They weren't mentioned until the second season.
>And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.
Those *poor* people.
"Bruce Barnett" wrote
> "Tim Zimmerman" writes:
> > Bottom posting wastes people's time by scrolling thru huge texts just
> > to find a few words.
> Bottom posting doesn't [waste people's] time if people TRIM THEIR POSTS.
Correct. I meant to say, "Bottom posting [without trimming] wastes people's
time by scrolling thru huge texts just to find a few words. :~)
Can you show us a doggy post? Just so we can compare and make a decision?
patrick conroy wrote:
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:JA4Xd.44051$r55.10321@attbi_s52...
>
>
>>Some of you think it's ridiculous to top
>
>
> Top, bottom, doggy - it's all about variety.
>
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Personally I agree with you 100 percent... especially when that reply
at the bottom of the message is one word....
However....Top Posting is NOT the accepted practice...does not stop me
from using it most of the time however....(lol)
Bob G.
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages to
>get to a reply.
>Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion, and
>I'm entitled to mine!
>As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's a PITA to have to scan through some times 2 or 3 or more messages
to
> > get to a reply.
> > Some of you think it's ridiculous to top post, but that's your opinion,
and
> > I'm entitled to mine!
> > As Bill Murray would say, "that's the facts Jack"!
>
> So you don't like people who don't trim un-needed content. I agree.
> I also think that having answers after questions makes sense.
>
Who really cares????????
--
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> ALWAYS trim posts. That's the polite thing to do.
> It takes an extra 10 seconds to do this.
> 100,000 readers deserve 10 seconds of effort, right?
Your reply is a perfect example of how a posting should be formatted. The
purpose of a quotation is to allow a point of reference to previously written
material; it is not supposed to be an archive of an entire conversation. Bottom
posting allows for a more normal flow of conversation, but it's only effective
when folks take the trouble to trim the quotation down to a paragraph or two.
Nobody wants to scroll down through reams of material for a one line reply.
Top posting makes the flow awkward and usually the top poster doesn't bother
trimming any of his quotation either. A pox on his house!
Anyway, you get a gold star for doing it the way it should be done.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
Dave Hinz wrote:
>Like I said. I don't understand why people go out of their way to
>read a thread they know they don't want to see, and then complain
>about it.
I'm guessing that if I continue to respond you'll continue
to respond and we'll still be at it here a couple/few weeks
down the line not having gotten anywhere near anything worth
two shits and no one else will care, as if they do now?
UA100, who wonders, sure thing? You be the judge...