botton posting
rosie@readandpost
please TOP POST!
--
read and post,
rosie
I don't need everyone to agree with me today. I only think I do.
...................... Karen Casey
Jean
Another convert at last!
Blushun
"rosie@readandpost" wrote
> is anyone else getting tired of having to scroll down in these posts?
> please TOP POST!
Rosie, I'm not sure which is right and which is wrong, but I always bottom
post. I like reading a bit of the original post first so that I'm clear on
what is being responded to.
When replying to a post, I snip the original so that only the points I am
addressing are left. I find it tiresome getting to the bottom of a long
original post only to find a one or two word replies.
Just my two cents....
Blushun
--
"The best way of avenging thyself is not to become like the wrong doer." -
Marcus Aurelius
rosie@readandpost
all.........................
but i will TOP POST, its easier to read, IMO.
--
read and post,
rosie
I don't need everyone to agree with me today. I only think I do.
...................... Karen Casey
"Blushun" <blu...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:meir8.8083$hU3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
David RL Gartner
"rosie@readandpost" <readand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Oshr8.60476$A67.15...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> is anyone else getting tired of having to scroll down in these posts?
> please TOP POST!
if everyone trimmed out the unnecessary parts of the quoted text (parts not
relevant to the poster's points), people wouldn't have to scroll down so
much.
the accepted method of responding to a person's post is to bottom post. we
read top to bottom, not bottom to top. think about it. top posting is rude
and socially unacceptable. and not all messages propogate the same on
everyone's newsreaders. which means that if someone top posts, then others
will see your response first, and then have to scroll all the way to the
bottom anyway to see what the person is responding to. it's even worse when
people don't quote altogether.
here, check this out, rosie:
http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/Usenet_posts.html.
if you're in doubt as how best to post, please see some of my posts
throughout the newsgroup.
thanks,
david
Stevie
>
> the accepted method of responding to a person's post is to bottom post.
we
> read top to bottom, not bottom to top. think about it. top posting is
rude
> and socially unacceptable. >>
> david
>
David happens to be etiquettely correct but sometimes.... given the nature
of the post or my time constraints I don't always do that. I am probably one
of the most guilty of top posting!
Stevie
>
David RL Gartner
> YES, i think what is so maddening, is those who don't trim at
> all.........................
> but i will TOP POST, its easier to read, IMO.
ok, but don't be surprised if people drive little plastic forks into your
neck when they meet you.
david
Ruddell
Stevie wrote:
> David happens to be etiquettely correct but sometimes.... given the nature
> of the post or my time constraints I don't always do that. I am probably one
> of the most guilty of top posting!
Bottom posting follows the same format as our conversational style. Of
course it's not illegal or anything like to top post, just that we don't
talk like that. Bottom posting in the accepted practice for usenet.
I top post sometimes with email sometimes, as the person on the other
end is aware of the topic, but for ngs, bottom posting leaving enough
for those who haven't been following the thread from the start, makes it
easier to understand what's being said.
It's not cast in stone as this isn't a moderated group ;-)
Dennis
Ruddell
Stevie wrote:
> David happens to be etiquettely correct but sometimes.... given the nature
> of the post or my time constraints I don't always do that. I am probably one
> of the most guilty of top posting!
Further info...
http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm
Dennis
userb3
>is anyone else getting tired of having to scroll down in these posts?
>please TOP POST!
Better yet, trim your quotes to only reflect the point under
discussion.
--
userb3
I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live by their own values with no interference from the government.
rosie@readandpost
getting them to TOP POST.
David RL Gartner
> i agree with you, but the chances of getting folks to TRIM are less, than
> getting them to TOP POST.
yeah, it's difficult to get stubborn people to do anything.
david
kayper
> > rude
> > and socially unacceptable.
> > thanks,
> > david
> David happens to be etiquettely correct but sometimes.... given the nature
> of the post or my time constraints I don't always do that. I am probably one
> of the most guilty of top posting!
I don't generally top post. However, I don't consider that particular
habit to be either rude or socially unacceptable. A nuisance,
perhaps, but no more so that the practice of *bottom* posting through
the quoted, unsnipped,
previous 18 posts. In either case, I usually feel as if I've walked
into the middle of a heated thread that is too cumbersome to review,
but let's not exaggerate something so trivial by using such strong
language to describe
either the practice of top posting or those who do it. No need to
make mountains out of molehills, etc.
Stevie, you are one of the *least* rude posters in this group and are
loved
and respected by all, no matter how or where you post! :=) kayper
Cheryl Gilbert
news:a8kvuk$sjf8s$1...@ID-123318.news.dfncis.de...
> X-No-archive: yes
> As much as I hate bottom posting, it is supposed to be the correct USENET
> way to do it.
I may be wrong, but I thought bottom posting is correct USENET etiquette,
too. Any USENET experts out there who can answer this for us?
I don't like to bottom post either.
----------------------------------------
Cheryl
www.cherylgilbert.com
David RL Gartner
"kayper" <ka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:2811c0b6.0204...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> I don't generally top post. However, I don't consider that particular
> habit to be either rude or socially unacceptable. A nuisance,
> perhaps, but no more so that the practice of *bottom* posting through
> the quoted, unsnipped,
> previous 18 posts. In either case, I usually feel as if I've walked
> into the middle of a heated thread that is too cumbersome to review,
it's easy to snip out irrelevant parts when replying to another's post(s).
yeah, like i did just now; glad you noticed!
david :)
Blushun
USENET
> > way to do it.
It would *really* help if people sniped the original posts and left only
what was relevant. Let's not be lazy and consider how others may be reading
the newsgroup and with what type of service.
Linda in Maryland
<acalifo...@aol.com> wrote:
>X-No-archive: yes
>Have more than thou showest. Speak less than thou knowest. Shakespeare
Shouldn't sig lines go on the bottom too?
Linda in Maryland
Linda in Maryland
<acalifo...@aol.com> wrote:
>X-No-archive: yes
>Have more than thou showest. Speak less than thou knowest. Shakespeare
>"Linda in Maryland" <lpt...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:pu2saus42ur9np2js...@4ax.com...
>At this point, who really f***** cares.
>
I was just curious. Sheesh.....
Linda in Maryland
JennP
> is anyone else getting tired of having to scroll down in these posts?
> please TOP POST!
Actually bottom posting is appropriate since it follows the natural flow of
conversation. Especially if someone has cut and pasted properly.
What drives me crazy is people who don't do any snipping. Quote only
relavent information.
JennP.
Ruddell
author.]
In article <ZPor8.220715$702.35506@sccrnsc02>, jennifer...@attbi.com
says...
> Actually bottom posting is appropriate since it follows the natural flow of
> conversation. Especially if someone has cut and pasted properly.
I really don't understand why someone would top post. A you pointed it
it's the natural flow...well put...
> What drives me crazy is people who don't do any snipping. Quote only
> relavent information.
Yes, like those who only use this place as a free advertising board ;-)
Dennis
Ruddell
author.]
In article <7g4sau0ao8p6i33sb...@4ax.com>, lpt...@att.net
says...
> I was just curious. Sheesh.....
Don't lose any sleep. Kathy's the af Village idiot...
Maryland, isn't that where the Blair Witch hangs out?
Dennis
Ruddell
In article <a8kism$4t6$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
stickneed...@SPAMmindspring.com says...
> ok, but don't be surprised if people drive little plastic forks into your
> neck when they meet you.
Ok, I've never done the tattoo thing, but is this an offer for a
discount? Always looking for a way to spend a cofarb buck ;-)
Dennis
David RL Gartner
"Ruddell" <ruddell'ELLE-KABONG'@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1717e4236...@news.cis.dfn.de...
<snip>
> Always looking for a way to spend a cofarb buck ;-)
ok, i've seen people refer to cofarb bucks before, but have no idea what
they are. can someone please explain?
david
Rasta Poodle
Of course they should, Linda, like signing a letter. Who in their right mind
would put the signature at the top of the letter? :-)
PS I still have and use the Stila ES you sent me years ago, you sweetie, you
wee the first on AF to gift me with something, big hi and hugs.
Anya {{{*_*}}}
Visit my "Aromatherapy Debunked and Defended" site
http://member.newsguy.com/~herblady
Bob Marley and the Wailers album "Exodus"
named "Album of the Century" by Time magazine
QInteS
acceptable ways to form replies. Haha. Oh well, when in Rome. For what
it's worth, I think reading bottom posting is a pain in the patookus,
unless you're responding to something specific. What's really funny is
that I'm seeing such serious posts in this thread about how uncivilized
top posting appears. Lighten up!
Patra
"David RL Gartner" $A67.15...@twister.rdc-!
>
> the accepted method of responding to a person's post is to bottom post.
That's what I thought. I used to top post but then got blasted by someone
in another ng about how rude I was being yada yada. So, now I bottom post.
Shrug.
QInteS
> No you weren't. You are bitching and I am sick of your type. Now if you
> want to be nice, fine, but cut the bitching out.
If you ever talk to me like that I'll cry for three days.
QInteS
haha! Shame on you! ;)
Linda in Maryland
wrote:
I've already started - I've been through one box of tissues already
:-(
Linda in Maryland
Ruddell
author.]
In article <a8lb27$v3$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
stickneed...@SPAMmindspring.com says...
It's pretty simple really. For example, if something is normally $100.00
and you can get it for $75.00, you've earned 25 cofarb bucks.
So, keep shopping and finding bargains to let the account build.
Eventually you'll have thousands of them and can go splurge on something
worthwhile ;-)
Dennis
Thank goodness my wife doesn't lurk here...whew!
Cheryl Gilbert
news:Qsqr8.5707$QC1.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Someone was blasted on this newsgroup for top posting!
----------------------------------------
Cheryl
www.cherylgilbert.com
JennP
"QInteS" <QIn...@floodcity.net> wrote in message
news:3CAE334A...@floodcity.net...
> This thread is so funny. I'm blown away that there are actually socially
> acceptable ways to form replies.
Blown Away? Literally ;)
Well, if you think about it, there are socially acceptable ways to write
different types of letters and other correspondence. Business form, personal
form, short notes, etc. All of these have different sets of "rules". Why
not Usenet?
JennP. (Am I the only third grade teacher who covered this?)
JennP
> It's pretty simple really. For example, if something is normally $100.00
> and you can get it for $75.00, you've earned 25 cofarb bucks.
>
> So, keep shopping and finding bargains to let the account build.
> Eventually you'll have thousands of them and can go splurge on something
> worthwhile ;-)
I like the Cofarb bucks theory.
I heard a term recently that I really thought was funny. "Spaving" Spending
to Save.
I actually spaved today ;)
JennP.
RandeeFW
>on the Internet. People who think they know your life better than you know
>yourself. ((((((QInteS))))) My adrenaline's up a bit today.
>
We know...we know. It's Friday. lol
I agree about the unscented thing. Unscented products
to me smell bad. - kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk - 4/2/02
David RL Gartner
then you'd better killfile her now. the day will come when she bitches you
out if you don't.
david
David RL Gartner
"Cheryl Gilbert" <che...@cherylgilbert.com> wrote in message
news:a8lg86$t4eaf$1...@ID-132104.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
> Someone was blasted on this newsgroup for top posting!
IIRC, a bunch of people got blasted by rosie at the start of this thread for
botton [sic] posting.
david
David RL Gartner
<ada...@spamsucks.ca> wrote in message
news:SGrr8.12381$je5.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Si vous ne faites jamais d'erreur, c'est que vous ne fait rien de tout.
If you never make error, it is that you does not do anything of all.
"nice work if you can get it, and if you get it, won't you tell me how?"
david
Charles L. Perrin
wrote:
>Bottom posting follows the same format as our conversational style. Of
>course it's not illegal or anything like to top post, just that we don't
>talk like that.
Top-posting is probably a violation of the NATO Treaty. <grin/duck>
>Bottom posting in the accepted practice for usenet.
Now, we know why KKK top-posts her sig.
--
Things would be a lot happier on Sesame Street if they'd just toss some Zoloft in Oscar the Grouch's trashcan. :-)
Charles L. Perrin
wrote:
>This thread is so funny. I'm blown away that there are actually socially
>acceptable ways to form replies. Haha.
I think there have been whole books written about the subject long
before TCP and IP were invented.
>What's really funny is that I'm seeing such serious posts in this
>thread about how uncivilized top posting appears.
The cavemen probably top-posted. <grin/duck>
Charles L. Perrin
<acalifo...@aol.com> wrote:
>My adrenaline's up a bit today.
Original Seven Up:
#1 - Contained lithium citrate
#2 - Slogan "Takes the Ouch out of the Grouch!"
Maybe you're short of Seven-Up. (I only have Sprite around here,
that's what they had on sale at the Bullseye Boutique.)
Lee
messages in a thread, I already *know* what the original message is. I
just want to read the replies, and not have to keep searching for them
somewhere near the bottom. If I'm entering an established thread
that's new to me, then having the original text at the bottom as a
reference (like a footnote) works for me. FWIW, the accepted "norm"
seems to vary amongst the various newsgroups and mailings that I
peruse; IOW bottom posting isn't necessarily considered "correct"
everywhere.
That said, I'm also tired of having to scroll through three and more
levels of quotes of entire posts (ads and all in some cases), whether
they are on the top OR bottom. I'd much rather see a message that
quotes just the relevant portions of the message to which it is
replying.
Lee
Charles L. Perrin
<stickneed...@SPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>ok, i've seen people refer to cofarb bucks before, but have no idea what
>they are. can someone please explain?
Cofarb Bucks are best described as "Arthur Andersen Home Version."
<grin/duck>
David RL Gartner
"Lee" <not_my_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CAE6791...@yahoo.com...
> > is anyone else getting tired of having to scroll down in these posts?
> > please TOP POST!
> messages in a thread, I already *know* what the original message is. I
> just want to read the replies, and not have to keep searching for them
> somewhere near the bottom.
not everyone's newsreaders propogate the messages in quite the same order.
you could actually be doing someone else a disservice. but as long as
you're satisfying yourself, why bother with what anyone else wants, right?
> If I'm entering an established thread
> that's new to me, then having the original text at the bottom as a
> reference (like a footnote) works for me.
yet you hate "to scroll through three and more levels of quotes of entire
posts (ads and all in some cases)." oh, yeah, that all makes sense. not.
would you like to contradict yourself some more?
> FWIW, the accepted "norm"
> seems to vary amongst the various newsgroups and mailings that I
> peruse; IOW bottom posting isn't necessarily considered "correct"
> everywhere.
neither are table manners. i know of one family who licked the spoon before
putting it back in the jelly jar at dinner. would you like to eat dinner
with *them*!?
> That said, I'm also tired of having to scroll through three and more
> levels of quotes of entire posts (ads and all in some cases), whether
> they are on the top OR bottom. I'd much rather see a message that
> quotes just the relevant portions of the message to which it is
> replying.
who wouldn't?
david
QInteS
> >What's really funny is that I'm seeing such serious posts in this
> >thread about how uncivilized top posting appears.
>
> The cavemen probably top-posted. <grin/duck>
LOLOLOL!!!!!! :D
Linda
>> If I'm entering an established thread
>> that's new to me, then having the original text at the bottom as a
>> reference (like a footnote) works for me.
>
>yet you hate "to scroll through three and more levels of quotes of entire
>posts (ads and all in some cases)." oh, yeah, that all makes sense. not.
>would you like to contradict yourself some more?
David, this poster did not contradict her/himself at all. Lee is saying that
if (s)he saw the original post, (s)he doesn't need to read it over and over
again or scroll through it to read/understand the reply. But if the thread has
been going on for awhile, and perhaps some of the earlier posts have aged
themselves so as not to be immediately accessible, then (s)he hasn't read the
original posts and would like to have them quoted at the bottom of the post to
refer to.
Linda
val189
posting.
Personally, I don't care, as long as the post being answered is nearly
snipped entirely -
How do you feel about NO reference shown, like I'm doin' here.
Val
Linda
>Val
If you're contributing an opinion to a thread with a clear topic, and not
responding directly to anything anyone else said, then I see no reason to
quote. Sometimes people will give a great review of a product that was
apparently mentioned in the post they're responding to, but the poster doesn't
quote the name of the product and doesn't call it by name in the review.
That's frustrating, especially if the review indicates a product I'd be
interested in.
Linda
Patra
"val189" <gweh...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> How do you feel about NO reference shown, like I'm doin' here.
Woo hoo! Some people will give you grief over that. Esp. over at
alt.celebrities.gossip. "Quote"! They'll scream.
Ynahteb
Bethany ;oP
<ada...@spamsucks.ca> wrote in message
news:SGrr8.12381$je5.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Cheryl Gilbert <che...@cherylgilbert.com> wrote:
> > I may be wrong, but I thought bottom posting is correct USENET
etiquette,
> > too. Any USENET experts out there who can answer this for us?
>
> It's more than just "bottom posting". It's using your editor to quote
> only the material you're responding to. I get tired of scrolling
> through lines and lines of >>>>> then >>>> and so on. Even though I
> hate reading a top-post, I'd rather read THAT than people who can't be
> bothered to edit their post to make it readable.
>
> Bottom posting makes sense. It's like getting the answer AFTER the
> question is asked.
>
> --
Ynahteb
"Cheryl Gilbert" <che...@cherylgilbert.com> wrote in message
news:a8lg86$t4eaf$1...@ID-132104.news.dfncis.de...
The bottom line is, people like to bitch. :O) especially usenutters...
Bethany
A Adams
"CaliforniaGirl" <acalifo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a97aro$vbe9$1...@ID-123318.news.dfncis.de...
> X-No-archive: yes
> Ditto.
>
> Have more than thou showest. Speak less than thou knowest. Shakespeare
>
> "Ynahteb" <bob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YjEt8.176$4E4.26...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Beauty Cafe
beginning of time, I've tried to Bottom Post, but I've always returned to
Top Posting. While I know there is a cure for this, I can't seem to bring
myself to stop....I honestly prefer to read the most recent posting before
deciding if I want to scroll down and read everything else that came before
it...
--
Love, laughter and friendship!
Lisa Slavik
www.beautycafe.com
"Charles L. Perrin" <c.l.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jhhfbuseto1dmmudc...@4ax.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:50:39 -0700, "CaliforniaGirl"
> <acalifo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Boiling blood.... sounds messy! <grin/duck>
>
> >It personally just makes my blood boil when people top post.
>
> Microsoft defaults to top-posting, so that must be the new standard.
>
> >What are they thinking anyway? ;-)
>
> The technique is TOP SECRET and only Vice President Cheney knows it;
> so far, he has managed to keep President Bush in the dark. <grin/duck>
>
> >How can I possibly follow the conversation when it is top posted?