[OT] Top Posting vs Bottom posting

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting


A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?


--
Fosco

Jim
Sat Sep 16 08:07:50 CDT 2006

It is hard to express how discourteous and aggravating bottom posting is.
When you send an email, the recipient expects to get a message not
a history of the world that must be scrolled in order to find the message.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware


"Fosco" <fake@fake.invalid> wrote in message news:LaNOg.4401$K8.4287@news.edisontel.com...
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
--
Fosco

mayayana
Sat Sep 16 08:56:41 CDT 2006

Is it really necessary to have an attitude
about that? Usually this argument is
limited to the rantings of cranky,
sleep-deprived Linux geeks on their
adolescent newsgroups. The very idea that
your preference is a matter of fact is, well,
virtually the definition of arrogance.

Personally, I prefer top posting because I'm
including the earlier text only for reference.
If I weren't there'd be no reason to include it
at all. Just as I might put a copy of someone's
paper-written letter behind the new letter that
I send them, as a courtesy in case they want
to refer to it.
----------

In the news I saw yesterday:

* Bush wants to eliminate the Geneva convention.

* The US Senate is looking at a bill to allow warrantless
searching of Americans and their homes - at any
time and for no reason.

* The summer melting on the polar ice cap, which
has been increasing by 0.7% per year, has increased
this year by 14%.

Do you suppose that maybe you could learn to
live with things like top-posting and people who
pronounce "tomato" the wrong way, and perhaps
worry about slightly more urgent things?

> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

I can only guess at what sort of person writes
a whole webpage to complain about top-posting
vs bottom-posting, but to put it as politely as I can,
I suspect they're long overdue to get laid.

Evertjan
Sat Sep 16 08:57:17 CDT 2006

Jim Cone wrote on 16 sep 2006 in microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript:
> "Fosco" <fake@fake.invalid> wrote in message
[..]
>> A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
>> Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?

[topposting corrected]

> It is hard to express how discourteous and aggravating bottom posting
> is. When you send an email, the recipient expects to get a message not
> a history of the world that must be scrolled in order to find the
> message.

Dear Jim,
You first remark points in the right direction:

Usenet is NOT email!!!!!

1 You cannot depend upon the reader of your news posting to have read or
even have received the earlier posting. That is the way usenet works.

2 The alternative of topposting is NOT quoting the whole of the earlier
postings before the reply, but quoting only relevant parts of that, and if
there are more than one point to be replied to, answer them each below
their own quote.
That is called "sparse subquoting".

3 Topquoting is an insult to usenet users, because next to illogical it is
not done according to usenet netiquette and many or most NG's charters.
Topposting is like disregarding that there are others that want to read the
post, and addressing only the previous poster, like it were email.

4 putting anything but your signature after the "double hyphen & return"
is also against netiquette, btw, and rightly so.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Shenan
Sat Sep 16 09:31:41 CDT 2006

Fosco wrote:
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>
> A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
> Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?

If only the answer given above was true around the world.
It is not.

How to post is up to the individual posting. Sure - there are opinions
about it.

You may request that someone, in a particular case, post/reply so that it is
easier for *you* to follow. In the end, however; it is all personal
preference. While it is true that most of the time (in the world beyond
newsgroups) the question comes before the answer - some like to play
Jeopardy. While it is also true that when someone asks a question - they
expect to read the answer to their question - you have to remember that the
answer is not the only important part of the thread and is *never* just for
original poster - but for the millions who might read the thread in years to
come.

So respond how you like. My only complaint is all capital letters. That is
hard to read.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Stefan
Sat Sep 16 12:41:29 CDT 2006

"Jim Cone" <jim.coneXXX@rcn.comXXX> wrote:

Your email address is wrong. Correct this error!

> It is hard to express how discourteous and aggravating bottom posting is.
> When you send an email, the recipient expects to get a message not
> a history of the world that must be scrolled in order to find the message.

And yet another braindead full quote!
Please inform yourself on how to quote. BTW: here is news, not email!
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt gives you plenty of reason for the usual
QUOTING style: write your answers below the text you reference and strip the
rest.

Amen
Stefan

Fosco
Sat Sep 16 21:06:11 CDT 2006

"Jim Cone"
> It is hard to express how discourteous and aggravating [CUT]


A: Top-posting!
> B: I don't know. What?
> > A: What's the most annoying email practice?

--
Fosco

Joe
Sun Sep 17 03:41:48 CDT 2006

Well said.
"mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:toTOg.12396$bM.4466@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Is it really necessary to have an attitude
> about that? Usually this argument is
> limited to the rantings of cranky,
> sleep-deprived Linux geeks on their
> adolescent newsgroups. The very idea that
> your preference is a matter of fact is, well,
> virtually the definition of arrogance.
>
> Personally, I prefer top posting because I'm
> including the earlier text only for reference.
> If I weren't there'd be no reason to include it
> at all. Just as I might put a copy of someone's
> paper-written letter behind the new letter that
> I send them, as a courtesy in case they want
> to refer to it.
> ----------
>
> In the news I saw yesterday:
>
> * Bush wants to eliminate the Geneva convention.
>
> * The US Senate is looking at a bill to allow warrantless
> searching of Americans and their homes - at any
> time and for no reason.
>
> * The summer melting on the polar ice cap, which
> has been increasing by 0.7% per year, has increased
> this year by 14%.
>
> Do you suppose that maybe you could learn to
> live with things like top-posting and people who
> pronounce "tomato" the wrong way, and perhaps
> worry about slightly more urgent things?
>
>> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> I can only guess at what sort of person writes
> a whole webpage to complain about top-posting
> vs bottom-posting, but to put it as politely as I can,
> I suspect they're long overdue to get laid.
>
Well said.

--

Joe Fawcett - MVP

http://joe.fawcett.name

Stefan
Sun Sep 17 08:16:18 CDT 2006

"Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroup.nospam> wrote:

Do you own the domain newsgroup.nospam?
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt

Yust another silly, superfluous and braindead full quote!
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

> Well said.

No, completely wrong.
There's ABSOLUTELY no need to include all previous postings
OVER AND OVER AGAIN: the news server has them all, you can
follow the thread. Guess where this word was derived from?!

[full quote removed]

Stefan

Robert
Sun Sep 17 11:15:12 CDT 2006

Back in the days... I used to reply mid-post... This made it look more like
a live conversation. It was an editing nightmare and if it wasn't formatted
properly or your recipient's reader sucked, the person receiving often
missed information. If the conversation required more than a single reply
from each person involved however... icky acky ooo, what a mess, and I loved
it. Thought it was the cat's meow.

As flame wars ebbed and flowed, I decided to give bottom posting a swing.
Sure it's great to have a complete conversation, chronologically sorted top
to bottom, but if the conversation was long, or the reply just as long, or
the topic too complex to edit down to a smaller quoted chunk, it could be
just as annoying to scroll through the entire message, and hope you find the
start of the reply without having to scroll back. Then what happened if you
edited out a chunk that was later deemed important?

This lasted about a week. I hate bottom posting ... then I switched to top
posting.

Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you opened
this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here'... three seconds
and you found your goal. Life is good. 8)

As for all those lovely arguments against Top-Posting that quote ancient
RFCs on netiquette. The internet and usenet were created by... you guessed
it, Engineers. When left to their own devices, Engineers tend to design
things for reasons other than business and personal 'use'. Engineers like
big thick manuals... bottom posting is like a big thick manual. a b c d e f
g h... neat, orderly. When you're an Engineer or a Scientist, you need to
know a b c d e in the order of a b c d e. That works... sure, but um...
what happens when you're a consumer, a user, a business? Do you care?

Long are gone the days when the usenet was used solely by academia.
Top-posting is immediate. Top posting is personal. Top-posting is for the
masses.

I will try to sum up my opinions for the reason for top posting in few
useful, daily life arguments.

1. Same concept goes for good paper filing systems. You file new to the
front... where's the front of an email? top.

2. If you're blind, and you're listening to your news reader, following a
conversation thread, that is say 20 replies deep... how fast will you dump
that thread, important or otherwise if you must wade through all that
replied, quoted text to reach the simple response all the way down at the
bottom over and over and over...?

3a. Frankly, I think bottom posting is a great way to get ignored. How
valuable is my time? What makes that bottom-posting author think they are
so special that they must force readers to scroll ad-infinitum just to see
their special response? Answer: Nothing. Nothing you say is so important
to me to deserve spending my valuable time looking for your pearl of wisdom.
That's why we have `threads'. If I'm reading a thread, I already know the
purpose and content of that thread to begin with, because, it was at the
beginning of the 'thread'.

3b. In this age of not just immediate gratification, but of the immediacy of
information, anything but top posting, wastes time. We all know what time
is... money. My time is valuable, your time is valuable. Learn to
structure your thoughts quickly. Put it to print. Get it out there and
move on. Easier said than done, I know, for lots of people...

<asbestos>Selfish, narcissistic self-important ignorance to your true worth
to the world at large is what I think drives people to argue in favour of
bottom-posting. Bottom posting tells me more about your personality then
your words could.</asbestos>

You may have heard "The medium is the message. ... The content is the
audience". Boy oh boy does this apply to USENET. The medium is
instantaneous, and so too should be the message... this is the very essence
of Top-posting.

In the end, it's all about personal choice. It's up to the author to decide
how to respond. No one can say it's right or wrong, just of differing
opinion. Unlike a private company, on USENET there is no policy, and no one
& no way to enforce it (unless it's a moderated ng of course). It's a
public forum for all dogs on the internet to have their chance to be
praised, flamed or ignored, regardless.

now back to our program... and time for lunch! 8)

--
[ Robert ]
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u2ltoyZ2GHA.4796@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Fosco wrote:
>> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>>
>> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>>
>> A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
>> Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
>
> If only the answer given above was true around the world.
> It is not.
>
> How to post is up to the individual posting. Sure - there are opinions
> about it.
>
> You may request that someone, in a particular case, post/reply so that it
> is easier for *you* to follow. In the end, however; it is all personal
> preference. While it is true that most of the time (in the world beyond
> newsgroups) the question comes before the answer - some like to play
> Jeopardy. While it is also true that when someone asks a question - they
> expect to read the answer to their question - you have to remember that
> the answer is not the only important part of the thread and is *never*
> just for original poster - but for the millions who might read the thread
> in years to come.
>
> So respond how you like. My only complaint is all capital letters. That
> is hard to read.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>

Fosco
Sun Sep 17 21:43:30 CDT 2006

"Joe Fawcett"
> Well said.


What if 100 users post like you in this thread ???

> Well said.

>> all scrap that I can read by the OP

>> Well said.

>>> all scrap that I can read by the OP

> >> Well said.

> >>> all scrap that I can read by the OP

ecc

It's all scrap that NONE needs nor to read nor to download
some people remeber has still 56 k connection

--
Fosco

Robert
Sun Sep 17 23:34:17 CDT 2006

Then your argument is for no quote in reply. Not top, not middle, nor
bottom post will help wth low bit rates. No quote unfortunately, is like
shooting your conversational point in the foot. There's no guarantee that
every message contributed to the thread will make it to every usenet
provider. Then what? Just what the heck were they talking about?

Then, that's where concise and informative headers can help (not replace).
If size is your enemy, when you lack speed, chances are you're paying close
attention to the header. If your speed is really bad, and in a perfect
universe, and everyone either top posted, or bottom posted, but not both,
then you'd skip to the last message available in the thread to get all of
the information from that one message. Been there, done that.

Or... you could configure your newsreader so that while you're wasting time
reading individual messages, your ng reader is taking advantage of your slow
eyes, busily downloading message headers and bodies in the background.

I'm like anyone else and love a good ego boost now and then, so I waffle on
this one, but I tend to agree with your point on the use of a single line
response. If validation of an element of the conversation isn't
intrinsically necessary to its purpose, ie: voting, show of hands, etc... ,
I try not to waste the opportunity by simply stroking someone else's ego
with a single line or monosyllabic grunt of approval.

I have friends who can barely get 33.6 and have no choice in the matter. 8)

Nitpicking beyond this is pointless... what if your processor is slow? What
if your bandwidth is metered? What if...?

--
[ Robert ]
"Fosco" <fake@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:lJnPg.4689$K8.574@news.edisontel.com...
> "Joe Fawcett"
>> Well said.
>
>
> What if 100 users post like you in this thread ???
>
>> Well said.
>
>>> all scrap that I can read by the OP
>
>>> Well said.
>
>>>> all scrap that I can read by the OP
>
>> >> Well said.
>
>> >>> all scrap that I can read by the OP
>
> ecc
>
> It's all scrap that NONE needs nor to read nor to download
> some people remeber has still 56 k connection
>
> --
> Fosco
>
>

Fosco
Mon Sep 18 00:36:38 CDT 2006

"Robert Sudbury" <phonecallsonlyplease>
> Then your argument is for no quote in reply.

No .. it's trimming ONLY the part you are replyng to
and it's MY WAY of view , I don't want to force anyone else

--
Fosco

mr_unreliable
Mon Sep 18 12:02:17 CDT 2006

I also do top-posting, and have been "flamed" numerous times
by folks who claim the practice to be intolerable because it
is bad "netiquette".

To those of you who don't like my top-posting, I would suggest
that the best revenge is to just ignore what I have to say.

On second thought, there is an even better revenge. Use your
newsreader filtering capability to filter out all my postings.

I have used filtering myself on some group members who I
consider to be overly arrogant, and it works wonderfully.
Life is too short to bother yourself with postings that
will be annoying to you.

cheers, jw

mayayana wrote:
> Personally, I prefer top posting because I'm
> including the earlier text only for reference.

Jason
Tue Sep 19 15:37:13 CDT 2006

amen for topposting.

since most newsreaders want to do this by default, maybe thats saying
something?




"Robert Sudbury" <phonecallsonlyplease> wrote in message
news:450d75d9$0$30797$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Back in the days... I used to reply mid-post... This made it look more
> like a live conversation. It was an editing nightmare and if it wasn't
> formatted properly or your recipient's reader sucked, the person receiving
> often missed information. If the conversation required more than a single
> reply from each person involved however... icky acky ooo, what a mess, and
> I loved it. Thought it was the cat's meow.
>
> As flame wars ebbed and flowed, I decided to give bottom posting a swing.
> Sure it's great to have a complete conversation, chronologically sorted
> top to bottom, but if the conversation was long, or the reply just as
> long, or the topic too complex to edit down to a smaller quoted chunk, it
> could be just as annoying to scroll through the entire message, and hope
> you find the start of the reply without having to scroll back. Then what
> happened if you edited out a chunk that was later deemed important?
>
> This lasted about a week. I hate bottom posting ... then I switched to
> top posting.
>
> Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you
> opened this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here'...
> three seconds and you found your goal. Life is good. 8)
>
> As for all those lovely arguments against Top-Posting that quote ancient
> RFCs on netiquette. The internet and usenet were created by... you
> guessed it, Engineers. When left to their own devices, Engineers tend to
> design things for reasons other than business and personal 'use'.
> Engineers like big thick manuals... bottom posting is like a big thick
> manual. a b c d e f g h... neat, orderly. When you're an Engineer or a
> Scientist, you need to know a b c d e in the order of a b c d e. That
> works... sure, but um... what happens when you're a consumer, a user, a
> business? Do you care?
>
> Long are gone the days when the usenet was used solely by academia.
> Top-posting is immediate. Top posting is personal. Top-posting is for
> the masses.
>
> I will try to sum up my opinions for the reason for top posting in few
> useful, daily life arguments.
>
> 1. Same concept goes for good paper filing systems. You file new to the
> front... where's the front of an email? top.
>
> 2. If you're blind, and you're listening to your news reader, following a
> conversation thread, that is say 20 replies deep... how fast will you dump
> that thread, important or otherwise if you must wade through all that
> replied, quoted text to reach the simple response all the way down at the
> bottom over and over and over...?
>
> 3a. Frankly, I think bottom posting is a great way to get ignored. How
> valuable is my time? What makes that bottom-posting author think they are
> so special that they must force readers to scroll ad-infinitum just to see
> their special response? Answer: Nothing. Nothing you say is so
> important to me to deserve spending my valuable time looking for your
> pearl of wisdom. That's why we have `threads'. If I'm reading a thread, I
> already know the purpose and content of that thread to begin with,
> because, it was at the beginning of the 'thread'.
>
> 3b. In this age of not just immediate gratification, but of the immediacy
> of information, anything but top posting, wastes time. We all know what
> time is... money. My time is valuable, your time is valuable. Learn to
> structure your thoughts quickly. Put it to print. Get it out there and
> move on. Easier said than done, I know, for lots of people...
>
> <asbestos>Selfish, narcissistic self-important ignorance to your true
> worth to the world at large is what I think drives people to argue in
> favour of bottom-posting. Bottom posting tells me more about your
> personality then your words could.</asbestos>
>
> You may have heard "The medium is the message. ... The content is the
> audience". Boy oh boy does this apply to USENET. The medium is
> instantaneous, and so too should be the message... this is the very
> essence of Top-posting.
>
> In the end, it's all about personal choice. It's up to the author to
> decide how to respond. No one can say it's right or wrong, just of
> differing opinion. Unlike a private company, on USENET there is no
> policy, and no one & no way to enforce it (unless it's a moderated ng of
> course). It's a public forum for all dogs on the internet to have their
> chance to be praised, flamed or ignored, regardless.
>
> now back to our program... and time for lunch! 8)
>
> --
> [ Robert ]
> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u2ltoyZ2GHA.4796@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Fosco wrote:
>>> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>>>
>>> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>>>
>>> A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
>>> Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
>>
>> If only the answer given above was true around the world.
>> It is not.
>>
>> How to post is up to the individual posting. Sure - there are opinions
>> about it.
>>
>> You may request that someone, in a particular case, post/reply so that it
>> is easier for *you* to follow. In the end, however; it is all personal
>> preference. While it is true that most of the time (in the world beyond
>> newsgroups) the question comes before the answer - some like to play
>> Jeopardy. While it is also true that when someone asks a question - they
>> expect to read the answer to their question - you have to remember that
>> the answer is not the only important part of the thread and is *never*
>> just for original poster - but for the millions who might read the thread
>> in years to come.
>>
>> So respond how you like. My only complaint is all capital letters. That
>> is hard to read.
>>
>> --
>> Shenan Stanley
>> MS-MVP
>> --
>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>
>

Bob
Tue Sep 19 21:11:02 CDT 2006

Jason Simmons wrote:
> amen for topposting.
>
> since most newsreaders want to do this by default, maybe thats saying
> something?


You must use some really odd definition of "most"

It's pretty much ONLY Outlook Express.

Dr
Wed Sep 20 15:50:31 CDT 2006

JRS: In article <OBXOIoF3GHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, dated Tue, 19
Sep 2006 19:11:02 remote, seen in news:microsoft.public.scripting.vbscri
pt, Bob O`Bob <filterbob@yahoogroups.com> posted :
>Jason Simmons wrote:
>> amen for topposting.
>>
>> since most newsreaders want to do this by default, maybe thats saying
>> something?
>
>You must use some really odd definition of "most"
>
>It's pretty much ONLY Outlook Express.


There's no difficulty in doing it right in OE; the cursor is initially
at the top which facilitates going through the material deleting what is
no longer germane and responding to the rest in rational order. There
is a foolish blank line at the top, I gather, which tempts the simple-
minded to start typing there.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. REPLYyyww merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 4 ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

Stefan
Wed Sep 20 15:57:51 CDT 2006

"Jason Simmons" <js@js.com> wrote:

Once more another braindead full quote!
As if the bad habit of top-posting weren't enough.

> amen for topposting.
>
> since most newsreaders want to do this by default, maybe thats saying
> something?

Of course: newsreaders don't, people using them do.
Writing on top (because that's were the cursor happens to be) is like
sh*tt*ing in your pants (because that's were your *ssh*l* happens to be).

Stefan

Joe
Thu Sep 21 13:47:55 CDT 2006

"Stefan Kanthak" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:%23m3bvvl2GHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroup.nospam> wrote:
>
> Do you own the domain newsgroup.nospam?
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt

No, but under Microsoft's dozy rules I have to use that address or else they
ignore my posts when I need an answer.
>
> Yust another silly, superfluous and braindead full quote!
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
>
>> Well said.
>
> No, completely wrong.
> There's ABSOLUTELY no need to include all previous postings
> OVER AND OVER AGAIN: the news server has them all, you can
> follow the thread. Guess where this word was derived from?!
>
> [full quote removed]
>
> Stefan
>
As the poster said there are a lot greater problems in the world than
top/bottom posting or not snipping.
Just ignore posts if you don't like the format. Most people seem to prefer
an answer to their problem.
It often seems to be that the ones who moan most are the ones who post
fewest constructive posts anyway.

--

Joe

Stefan
Sat Oct 14 09:02:59 CDT 2006

"Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroup.nospam> wrote:

> "Stefan Kanthak" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:%23m3bvvl2GHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroup.nospam> wrote:
> >
> > Do you own the domain newsgroup.nospam?
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt
>
> No, but under Microsoft's dozy rules I have to use that address or else they
> ignore my posts when I need an answer.

So you didn't use your brain in the first place when you setup this
WRONG address? Microsoft's "dozy rules" on
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx
DON'T urge you to use a non-existant address you don't own!

> > Yust another silly, superfluous and braindead full quote!
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
> >
> >> Well said.
> >
> > No, completely wrong.
> > There's ABSOLUTELY no need to include all previous postings
> > OVER AND OVER AGAIN: the news server has them all, you can
> > follow the thread. Guess where this word was derived from?!
> >
> > [full quote removed]
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> As the poster said there are a lot greater problems in the world than
> top/bottom posting or not snipping.

No OnT arguments any more?
Usenet (c.f. the reference to it under the above mentioned URL) tradition
is citing the relevant parts one refers to and cutting the rest.
See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
If you don't like this, stay away from usenet.

> Just ignore posts if you don't like the format. Most people seem to prefer
> an answer to their problem.

Most people won't get an answer when using falsified addresses or when
top posting. That's what filters are good for. My filters!

> It often seems to be that the ones who moan most are the ones who post
> fewest constructive posts anyway.

It seems. IYHO.

Stefan

Randu
Sun Nov 19 21:32:02 CST 2006

Stefan,
Please read the reply by Mayayana again, and then
GET A LIFE!
--
Randu


"Stefan Kanthak" wrote:

> "Jason Simmons" <js@js.com> wrote:
>
> Once more another braindead full quote!
> As if the bad habit of top-posting weren't enough.
>
> > amen for topposting.
> >
> > since most newsreaders want to do this by default, maybe thats saying
> > something?
>
> Of course: newsreaders don't, people using them do.
> Writing on top (because that's were the cursor happens to be) is like
> sh*tt*ing in your pants (because that's were your *ssh*l* happens to be).
>
> Stefan
>
>

JanHilton
Mon Nov 20 09:55:01 CST 2006

Top posting is more natural and intuitive.
Who wants to wade through all them ">" when
we have already read the post above.

Jan




"Troll@Hunter" <troll@hunter.invalid> wrote
in message news:45612424_1@x-privat.org...
> Randu:
>> Stefan,
>> Please
>
> PLONK
> --
> troll@hunter

Shenan
Mon Nov 20 11:15:11 CST 2006

JanHilton wrote:
> Top posting is more natural and intuitive.
> Who wants to wade through all them ">" when
> we have already read the post above.

That assumes you have access to the entire thread (the newsgroup provider
you are utilizing hasn't archived/removed these posts by the time you get to
them.) This does happen to many people a lot of the time.

I personally don't care which way anyone posts - as long as it makes sense
to the original poster - the one who asked for help - and they get the
answer they needed.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Richard
Mon Nov 20 12:39:55 CST 2006


"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O%2390wdMDHHA.4404@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> JanHilton wrote:
>> Top posting is more natural and intuitive.
>> Who wants to wade through all them ">" when
>> we have already read the post above.
>
> That assumes you have access to the entire thread (the newsgroup provider
> you are utilizing hasn't archived/removed these posts by the time you get
> to them.) This does happen to many people a lot of the time.
>
> I personally don't care which way anyone posts - as long as it makes sense
> to the original poster - the one who asked for help - and they get the
> answer they needed.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP

I have many times found answers (or comments), but the question is lost.

--
Richard
Microsoft MVP Scripting and ADSI
Hilltop Lab - http://www.rlmueller.net