Top posting or Bottom? WHO THE HELL CARES!
Tartar
I've seen yet another thread (one on OS X 10.2.2) degenerate into a top
posting/bottom posting flame war, and boy is that annoying.
I understand and support the position bottom posters even though
otherwise they appear to be devoid of wit and humor. To them I make
this plea: Enough already! When I'm reading a thread, the one thing
worse than top posting is when the thread inevitably digresses into
discussions of usenet etiquette and insults being brandied about.
One bottom poster suggested that he/she add top posters to his/her kill
file. At the time I thought, "Gee, it might be inconvenient to read top
postings, but I'd sure hate to miss out into insights someone might have
on this particular thread just because he/she uses a different style."
But I now understand this bottom poster was right. Those bottom posters
who do nothing but bitch and otherwise have nothing constructive to say
are going to be ushered right into my kill file!
And speaking of something constructive, I have some sincere and
constructive advice I'd offer to those bottom posters who continuously
have their panties in a wad.
1:
Instead of wasting everyone's time and insulting people who don't bottom
post, why not use the same time and energy to create a FAQ or "newsgroup
guidelines" that they can post from time to time. Then they can include
in such documents the merits of trimming and bottom posting (and perhaps
other helpful information about the group). And it might just be more
persuasive than offering continuous complaints.
2:
If you must reply to someone about their choice of posting style, why
not designate so in the subject line? (I'd suggest prefacing the
subject line with "TPB" for Top Post Bitch.) Then I can pass the
message by without having to read it.
Thank you for your time, and God bless America!
Tartar
Davoud
Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
Davoud
Tartar:
Hear! Hear!
Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
Davoud
--
david *at* davidillig dawt com
Tartar
In article <281120020920022767%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
> Hear! Hear!
>
> Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
> issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
>
> Davoud
>
> >
> > Thank you for your time, and God bless America!
> >
> > Tartar
>
> Hear! Hear!
Davoud, my friend, you've found the solution!
>
> Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
> issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
>
> Davoud
Davoud, my friend, you've found the solution!
Top, middle AND bottom. Can anyone top that? (Pun intended.)
Tartar
Kishin
> Hear! Hear!
>
> Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
> issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
Well, thank you for allowing me the unique opportunity to middle post.
Kishin
nil
it's posted at the top or the bottom. For instance, about 99.9% of the
postings in this thread are totally uninteresting, this one included.
david bonde wrote:
> By top-posting you usually make it quite clear that you lacks
> knowledge, in other words, top posters seldom add anything interesting
> to a discussion.
nospam
(in message <1fmd9nu.12f9bg7adau34N%i97_bedR...@i.kth.se>):
> you lacks knowledge,
Irony at it's finest.
Vincent Vega
nospam <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Irony at it's finest.
Yes, irony at it is finest!
Steve Hix
<reply.to-EDA4A9...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
Tartar <repl...@newsgroup.net> wrote:
> [snip]
Anyone trying to follow a non-trivial thread.
Steve Hix
How good is your Swedish? If you'd bothered to look at the
poster's address, you could have noticed that he isn't posting
from an English-speaking locale.
(This has nothing to do with the fact that I know quite a few
Swedes (and Dutch) whose English is as good as, or better than,
the majority of educated Americans or Canadians.)
Andy Hewitt
Yeah, but now what?
> In article <281120020920022767%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hear! Hear!
> >
> > Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
> > issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
Yeah, but now what?
> Well, thank you for allowing me the unique opportunity to middle post.
>
> Kishin
Yeah, but now what?
>
> > Hear! Hear!
> >
> > Notice: In the interest in placating rude dolts on both sides of this
> > issue, this reply is both top-and-bottom posted. Thank you.
> >
> > Davoud
Yeah, but now what?
--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, OSOS#5 - BMW K100RS 8v, Honda Concerto 16v
(RIP H100s, CB400N, CB750KZ, XJ600s) Windows free zone (Mac G3)
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ahewitt/index.htm> (last update 11/01)
(Now Testing MacSOUP 2.5 for OSX)
Daniel Packman
david bonde <i97_bedR...@i.kth.se> wrote:
>...... However, on
>usenet most people write sloppy from time to time, this was one of these
>times...
Write sloppy [prose]. [the object is understood]
or
Write sloppily.
Thanks for an excellent second example, he dashed off haphazardly. :-)
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pa...@ucar.edu
nil
> ... However, on
> usenet most people write sloppy from time to time, this was one of
> these times...
Make that "sloppily" (and another one of those times, I suppose).
Steve Hix
i97_bedR...@i.kth.se (david bonde) wrote:
> Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > How good is your Swedish? If you'd bothered to look at the
> > poster's address, you could have noticed that he isn't posting
> > from an English-speaking locale.
> >
> > (This has nothing to do with the fact that I know quite a few
> > Swedes (and Dutch) whose English is as good as, or better than,
> > the majority of educated Americans or Canadians.)
>
> Actually, my english is quite good, even though it is my second
> language.
It had not passed my notice... :}
> I have passed both the Advanced and the Proficiency exams at
> Cambridge University and I have lived in UK for some time. However, on
> usenet most people write sloppy from time to time, this was one of these
> times...
So you made a typo...his reponse should have been embarrassing,
to him, unless he's one of those on the forefront of grammatical
change; specifically, using the apostrophe as a warning that a
letter "S" was on its way.
Singha_lvr
(in message <sehix-E63941....@news.dsldesigns.com>):
It was a joke.
If you looked at my posting locale then you would know that we have a sense
of humor over here.
(Sheesh.)
Incidently, English is not my native language either. (Not that I see what
difference that makes.)
Singha_lvr
(in message <1fmdk9d.12wvdhzjuq29vN%i97_bedR...@i.kth.se>):
> From: i97_bedR...@i.kth.se (david bonde)
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc
>
> Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> How good is your Swedish? If you'd bothered to look at the
>> poster's address, you could have noticed that he isn't posting
>> from an English-speaking locale.
>>
>> (This has nothing to do with the fact that I know quite a few
>> Swedes (and Dutch) whose English is as good as, or better than,
>> the majority of educated Americans or Canadians.)
>
> Actually, my english is quite good, even though it is my second
> language. I have passed both the Advanced and the Proficiency exams at
> Cambridge University and I have lived in UK for some time. However, on
> usenet most people write sloppy from time to time, this was one of these
> times...
Your English is fine. The fact that you made a mistake in *THAT* particular
response was quite funny though.
Singha_lvr
(in message <sehix-FFD69F....@news.dsldesigns.com>):
> From: Steve Hix <se...@mac.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc
>
My "reponse" was a joke. (You know ... a short blurb to cause laughter or a
chuckle.)
Seriously .... some of you folks think into things far too deeply.
Davoud
> If you looked at my posting locale...
******
I looked. Singha? Boon Rawd? Sounds like you might have spent a bit too
much time Banging your kok.
By the way, it's pronounced "Sing" (short syllable with a rising tone),
not "Singha." The latter would be the Sanskrit pronunciation, not the
Thai.
Davoud
9-year Bangkok resident
Steve Hix
Singha_lvr <singh...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:00:43 -0500, Steve Hix wrote
> (in message <sehix-E63941....@news.dsldesigns.com>):
>
> > From: Steve Hix <se...@mac.com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc
> >
> > In article <0001HW.BA0BC2F5...@news.charter.net>,
> > nospam <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:44:02 -0500, david bonde wrote
> >> (in message <1fmd9nu.12f9bg7adau34N%i97_bedR...@i.kth.se>):
> >>
> >>> you lacks knowledge,
> >>
> >> Irony at it's finest.
> >
> > How good is your Swedish? If you'd bothered to look at the
> > poster's address, you could have noticed that he isn't posting
> > from an English-speaking locale.
> >
> > (This has nothing to do with the fact that I know quite a few
> > Swedes (and Dutch) whose English is as good as, or better than,
> > the majority of educated Americans or Canadians.)
>
> It was a joke.
It was the "it's" that set me off...I've been besieged of editors
of late.
> If you looked at my posting locale then you would know that we have a sense
> of humor over here.
Um...charter.net doesn't ring a "locale bell", sorry.
I know a few people locally who like Singha, for what that's
worth, none of them speak Thai.
> (Sheesh.)
> Incidently, English is not my native language either. (Not that I see what
> difference that makes.)
It's usually English-only speakers who jump on someone else for
making typos or grammatical errors.
jemmy ducks
> Sorry for expressing my frustration.
>
> I've seen yet another thread (one on OS X 10.2.2) degenerate into a top
> posting/bottom posting flame war, and boy is that annoying.
>
> I understand and support the position bottom posters even though
> otherwise they appear to be devoid of wit and humor. To them I make
> this plea: Enough already!
I'm with you. What irks me is all these damned "bottom posters" who
don't bother to excise any of the quoted material before posting their
one-sentence response. If one is interested in what they have to say,
one has to scroll to the bottom of a multi-page message. Doe anyone
really think people are going to read all the quoted material? I say
phooey on them for a pack of lazy posters!
Singha_lvr
(in message <281120022032574974%st...@sky.net>):
That's my handle dingbat ... my posting locale is north america.
And you can tell that I pronounce a word incorrectly because I typed it the
way it's spelled on the bottle? You are a mind-reader indeed.
(Now ... go back and learn to read usenet headers too!)
Steve Hix
Singha_lvr <singh...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:32:57 -0500, Davoud wrote
> (in message <281120022032574974%st...@sky.net>):
>
> > Singha_lvr:
> >> If you looked at my posting locale...
> >
> > ******
> >
> > I looked. Singha? Boon Rawd? Sounds like you might have spent a bit too
> > much time Banging your kok.
> >
> > By the way, it's pronounced "Sing" (short syllable with a rising tone),
> > not "Singha." The latter would be the Sanskrit pronunciation, not the
> > Thai.
> >
> > Davoud
> > 9-year Bangkok resident
> >
> >
>
> That's my handle dingbat ... my posting locale is north america.
Which not all *that* evident.
"charter.net" could be just about anywhere in the world.
The full path ain't all that much more helpful:
"Path:
newsfeed.slurp.net!slurp.net!newsrouter1.slurp.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr
.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!co
rp.supernews.com!not-for-mail"
Other than presumably running through Syracuse University, and maybe
guessing that supernews.com might be in the U.S., there's not a whole
lot to go on.
Davoud
> >> If you looked at my posting locale...
Davoud:
> > I looked. Singha? Boon Rawd? Sounds like you might have spent a bit too
> > much time Banging your kok.
> > By the way, it's pronounced "Sing" (short syllable with a rising tone),
> > not "Singha." The latter would be the Sanskrit pronunciation, not the
> > Thai.
Singha_lvr:
> That's my handle dingbat ... my posting locale is north america.
I knew that, you beer-bellied dodo. I said "might have spent..." not
"are spending."
> And you can tell that I pronounce a word incorrectly because I typed it the
> way it's spelled on the bottle? You are a mind-reader indeed.
I didn't suggest that you can't pronounce the name of "Sing" beer
correctly. If anything, I suggested that the people who make that
rotgut don't know how to transliterate Thai into Roman letters.
Khun Dawit aka Davoud aka &c.
Singha_lvr
(in message <291120021107560478%st...@sky.net>):
> From: Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> Reply-To: st...@sky.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc
>
> Singha_lvr:
>>>> If you looked at my posting locale...
>
> Davoud:
>>> I looked. Singha? Boon Rawd? Sounds like you might have spent a bit too
>>> much time Banging your kok.
>>> By the way, it's pronounced "Sing" (short syllable with a rising tone),
>>> not "Singha." The latter would be the Sanskrit pronunciation, not the
>>> Thai.
>
> Singha_lvr:
>> That's my handle dingbat ... my posting locale is north america.
>
> I knew that, you beer-bellied dodo. I said "might have spent..." not
> "are spending."
>
Dodo. Interesting bird indeed.
>> And you can tell that I pronounce a word incorrectly because I typed it
>> the
>> way it's spelled on the bottle? You are a mind-reader indeed.
>
> I didn't suggest that you can't pronounce the name of "Sing" beer
> correctly. If anything, I suggested that the people who make that
> rotgut don't know how to transliterate Thai into Roman letters.
Well .. I'll take the high-road and assume that is what you meant. (With
sincerity) If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Khap Khun Kaap.
David
Tho I suggest we all middle post and be happy together
David
PS Actually I support top posting for one reply, and interleaved for
many points
Nice one Davoud
nil
before posting their two or three line responses hell and gone down
there.
Okay, now can you tell me again why that is supposed to be a better way
to communicate?
Elana Kehoe
> Instead of wasting everyone's time and insulting people who don't bottom
> post, why not use the same time and energy to create a FAQ or "newsgroup
> guidelines" that they can post from time to time. Then they can include
> in such documents the merits of trimming and bottom posting (and perhaps
> other helpful information about the group). And it might just be more
> persuasive than offering continuous complaints.
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
E
--
I'm not cuckoo...please remove CLOCK for email
Tony Lawrence
That doesn't say a thing about top or bottom posting :-)
I wouldn't normally top post, but I have a simple rule that determines
whether or not I'm annoyed by someone who does:
If the text top posted could stand by itself as a useful and informative
post, needing no supporting information from the post replied to, then
it doesn't bother me, and sometimes it is the better procedure. In most
such legitimate cases, the quoted material is superfluous and should
have been removed anyway, but sometimes (rarely) it's appropriate for
that to be left in just in case some minor point of the discussion might
need to be checked.
Here's an example of such a post:
"The quoted material below is a long, convoluted mess involving a
discussion of XYZ. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of
confusion and erroneous suggestions therein, mostly brought about by the
original poster neglecting to mention until quite late in the thread
that he was attempting to run XYZ on OS 9. As XYZ does not, will not,
and cannot run on anything below OS X, none of this is of any value
except perhaps to someone having similar problems on a more recent
version of MacOS."
That's a perfectly legitimate top post. In fact, it SHOULD be
top-posted. It wouldn't make sense NOT to top-post that.
Other than that, replies should intermingle with quoted material, quoted
material should usually be edited appropriately, etc. One thing that
DOES bug me is when people do something like this:
> various quoted stuff
>> more indents etc
> blah blah
> fred said suchandsuch about xyzand then
Bill replies here
> and fred continues here
> with more blah blah
DON'T DO THAT!
Do
> various quoted stuff
>> more indents etc
> blah blah
> fred said suchandsuch about xyzand then
Bill replies here, set off with enough whitespace that I can easily
notice it!
> and fred continues here
> with more blah blah
--
Please note new phone number: (781) 784-7547
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux Support Tips, How-To's, Tests and more: http://aplawrence.com
Free Unix/Linux Consultants list: http://aplawrence.com/consultants.html
Tartar
elana...@zen.org (Elana Kehoe) wrote:
E, you've missed my point. Here it is in a nutshell.
1. Those who spend their time commenting on top/bottom/middle posters
on virtually every thread must have lots of time.
2. That time could be spent doing something helpful to the group, like
compiling FAQ's, hopefully involving the subject matter of the group,
not just top/bottom/middle posting.
3. If they are so inclined, they could post guidelines (including
quoting style, bottom posting, etc.) as a top level thread from time to
time.
And as Mr. Lawrence points out, your link doesn't address the issue.
--
Tartar
"He ain't heavy, he's my iMac.
Well, actually, he is kind of heavy."
Elana Kehoe
> In article <1fmggt5.174krcx2u5junN%elana...@zen.org>,
> elana...@zen.org (Elana Kehoe) wrote:
>
> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
> E, you've missed my point. Here it is in a nutshell.
>
> 1. Those who spend their time commenting on top/bottom/middle posters
> on virtually every thread must have lots of time.
Yes, but some do have to deal with newbies and others who use Outlook
for posting (which, IIRC, automatically places the cursor at the top
when replying). So occasional mentions of it is fine. But yes,
consistent comments are time-wasters.
> 3. If they are so inclined, they could post guidelines (including
> quoting style, bottom posting, etc.) as a top level thread from time to
> time.
> And as Mr. Lawrence points out, your link doesn't address the issue.
The link does address this issue, as posting style and Usenet netiquette
is what you are talking about.
G.E.R.R.Y.
<reply.to-03221E...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com>, Tartar
<repl...@newsgroup.net> wrote:
> If they are so inclined, they could post guidelines (including
> quoting style, bottom posting, etc.) as a top level thread from time
> to time.
Suggesting (telling?) people what to do on Usenet? Now, that's funny.
Another windmill, keep tilting, Don.
Gerry <laughing uproariously>
Singha_lvr
(in message <1fmgwuz.19c1uuf4qv55gN%elana...@zen.org>):
> From: elana...@zen.org (Elana Kehoe)
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system, comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc
>
> Tartar <repl...@newsgroup.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1fmggt5.174krcx2u5junN%elana...@zen.org>,
>> elana...@zen.org (Elana Kehoe) wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
>
>> E, you've missed my point. Here it is in a nutshell.
>>
>> 1. Those who spend their time commenting on top/bottom/middle posters
>> on virtually every thread must have lots of time.
>
> Yes, but some do have to deal with newbies and others who use Outlook
> for posting (which, IIRC, automatically places the cursor at the top
> when replying). So occasional mentions of it is fine. But yes,
> consistent comments are time-wasters.
This rates right up there with the yEnc wars in the binary groups.
dave...@spamcop.net
> Here's an example of such a post:
> "The quoted material below is a long, convoluted mess involving a
> discussion of XYZ. Unfortunately,
(snip)
> That's a perfectly legitimate top post. In fact, it SHOULD be
> top-posted. It wouldn't make sense NOT to top-post that.
It would make more sense to say "(person's) comments regarding this
on OS-9 don't apply, because", rather than including the whole thing
again, neh?
> Other than that, replies should intermingle with quoted material, quoted
> material should usually be edited appropriately, etc. One thing that
> DOES bug me is when people do something like this:
> > various quoted stuff
> >> more indents etc
> > blah blah
> > fred said suchandsuch about xyzand then
> Bill replies here, set off with enough whitespace that I can easily
> notice it!
Absolutely. When the goal is communication, things which are easy to do,
and help communication, are hard to argue against. Well..at least hard
to argue against with any kind of logic.
Dave Hinz
Geoffrey Anderson
In <reply.to-EDA4A9...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com>
Tartar wrote:
> Sorry for expressing my frustration.
>
> I've seen yet another thread (one on OS X 10.2.2) degenerate into a
> top posting/bottom posting flame war, and boy is that annoying.
>
> I understand and support the position bottom posters even though
> otherwise they appear to be devoid of wit and humor. To them I make
> this plea: Enough already! When I'm reading a thread, the one thing
> worse than top posting is when the thread inevitably digresses into
> discussions of usenet etiquette and insults being brandied about.
>
> One bottom poster suggested that he/she add top posters to his/her
> kill file. At the time I thought, "Gee, it might be inconvenient to
> read top postings, but I'd sure hate to miss out into insights
> someone might have on this particular thread just because he/she uses
> a different style."
>
> But I now understand this bottom poster was right. Those bottom
> posters who do nothing but bitch and otherwise have nothing
> constructive to say are going to be ushered right into my kill file!
>
> And speaking of something constructive, I have some sincere and
> constructive advice I'd offer to those bottom posters who continuously
> have their panties in a wad.
>
> 1:
> Instead of wasting everyone's time and insulting people who don't
> bottom post, why not use the same time and energy to create a FAQ or
> "newsgroup guidelines" that they can post from time to time. Then
> they can include in such documents the merits of trimming and bottom
> posting (and perhaps other helpful information about the group). And
> it might just be more persuasive than offering continuous complaints.
>
Tony Lawrence
> In comp.sys.mac.apps Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Here's an example of such a post:
>
>
>> "The quoted material below is a long, convoluted mess involving a
>> discussion of XYZ. Unfortunately,
>
> (snip)
>
>> That's a perfectly legitimate top post. In fact, it SHOULD be
>> top-posted. It wouldn't make sense NOT to top-post that.
>
>
> It would make more sense to say "(person's) comments regarding this
> on OS-9 don't apply, because", rather than including the whole thing
> again, neh?
Maybe. But if the other material in the thread did have value for OS X
people, I think it would be appropriate to leave it.
> Absolutely. When the goal is communication, things which are easy to
> do, and help communication, are hard to argue against. Well..at
> least hard to argue against with any kind of logic.
The whole Top Posting stuff reminds me of html mail. It's an
abomination, it often ticks me off, but there is absolutely no point in
fighting it. Top posting is generally the wrong thing to do, but like
html, it isn't ALWAYS wrong, and enough people do it that the rest of us
just need to bite our tongues and get used to it.
Jay Maynard
>The whole Top Posting stuff reminds me of html mail. It's an
>abomination, it often ticks me off, but there is absolutely no point in
>fighting it.
Actually, I reject HTML email out of hand, with a message that says I accept
email in text only. Isn't postfix wonderful?
>Top posting is generally the wrong thing to do, but like html, it isn't
>ALWAYS wrong, and enough people do it that the rest of us just need to bite
>our tongues and get used to it.
Yes, it is always wrong. Period.
Tony Lawrence
> In article <asdjgu$8ds$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Top posting is generally the wrong thing to do, but like
>>html, it isn't ALWAYS wrong, and enough people do it that the rest of us
>>just need to bite our tongues and get used to it.
>
>
> pool. Pass their posts by, nothing interesting to see there!
Just on the off chance that you are actually serious:
The people most likely to top-post are those who are both new to
newsgroups and/or are using stupid tools that encourage the practice by
opening up empty space above the quoted text and graciously positioning
the cursor there. If you feel that you should just ignore such people,
fine. Berating them for their horrid offense is, I think, just
shoveling shit against the tide. It accomplishes little but never
ending threads discussing their transgression.
BTW, I've also found that a depressing number of my clients can't
understand my email replies to them unless I DO top post. They are
conditioned not to look within quoted text so they just don't and they
think that I have stupidly just returned their email to them. I imagine
that the same inability happens here - they probably can't read replies
that are not top posted!
Go visit a site like Tek Tips ( http://www.tektips.com ). Now there's a
format that absolutely drives me nuts - yet they denizens of that and
similar places love it and often are quite vehement in their expressed
dislike of newgroup quoting. An oft stated reason, amazingly enough, is
that they can't follow the conversation because of all the quoting!!
Personally, I blame Microsoft for most of this crap. Their legions of
baby faced programmers with little or no understanding of what came
before have bothed caused and encouraged much of this.
But insisting that top posters are the shallow end of the gene
pool tempts the old comment "Don't judge a book by its cover".
Tony Lawrence
> On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:13:50 -0500, Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>>The whole Top Posting stuff reminds me of html mail. It's an
>>abomination, it often ticks me off, but there is absolutely no point in
>>fighting it.
>
>
> Actually, I reject HTML email out of hand, with a message that says I accept
> email in text only. Isn't postfix wonderful?
Obviously you don't have clients (or don't care about keeping them). If
I sent a message like that back, I bet half my customers wouldn't know
what to do - they don't even KNOW they are sending HTML. Heck, my wife
doesn't even know that (and yes, I've tried to explain it to her).
>
>
>>Top posting is generally the wrong thing to do, but like html, it isn't
>>ALWAYS wrong, and enough people do it that the rest of us just need to bite
>>our tongues and get used to it.
>
>
> Yes, it is always wrong. Period.
That's probably what the dinosaurs thought about the mammals too.
People's brains work in different ways. Some people don't like the form
of interspersed quoting/replying that we are used to. I suspect it is
perhaps related to the whole dumbing down of computers stuff - the
folks who have been at this a long time think differently. We never
would have gotten into this stuff early on if we did not think
differently, but what is logical to us isn't always logical to someone
else.
Different isn't wrong. Enforcing your social conventions upon other
people is what causes mild discomfort and discrimination at one end and
wars and terrorism at the other. Do we want to homogenize the world?
We need to grow up and allow different strokes for different folks. I'm
reaching way beyond the minor example of top posting here, but isn't it
interesting how Americans are so quick to condemn such quaint Muslim
customs as stoning while brooking no interference with our own methods
of capital punishment? We criticize them for forcing women to wear
veils, but think nothing of forcing women to cover their breasts here.
We supposedly have freedom of religion, but I doubt Americans would
allow the Oriental penis worship cults to practice here.
It's time to stop making laws about behaviour, in or out of newsgroups.
If you can't stand the site of a six foot penis, don't look at it. If
you can't bring yourself to read a top posted comment, pass it by. But
YOUR cultural imprintings shouldn't be law. That doesn't mean that you
shouldn't be free to post in the interspersed method or have a more
conventional religion. Everyone else needs to allow you your freedom
too. I don't think that offense of cultural values should be an excuse
for any negative reaction at all. If you want to politely explain why
you find Jebus more appealing than a penis, or interspersed posting more
coherent than top posting, fine, have at it. But the other person
shouldn't have to listen to you or change their actions just because you
don't like it.
Tony Lawrence
> In article <asdod0$htc$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Tony Lawrence
> <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's time to stop making laws about behaviour, in or out of newsgroups.
>
>
> are certain things in newsgroups that, in an absolute sense, you just
> don't do. These facts are not to be questioned, they simply exist as
> de facto laws. Such as: 1) spamming, 2) using HTML, 3) posting
> binaries in non-binary groups. People violate all three of these rules
> with impunity, but that doesn't make it right.
Spamming is inappropriate use, using html wastes bandwidth and
interferes with some people's ability to view the posts, and binaries
are again inappropriate use. In each of these cases, it's easy to show
reasons why doing that intereferes with other people's use of the
newsgroups. Banning html is the weakest of the arguments and is already
starting to fall away. I suspect the anti-html bias to disappear
entirely given time.
But posting style is nothing but a cultural bias. The fact that
"convention" says that such and such is wrong shouldn't be enough to
justify anything.
Tony Lawrence
> In article <asdmsm$e5e$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, I've also found that a depressing number of my clients can't
>>understand my email replies to them unless I DO top post.
>
>
> exist at the same, low intellectual level. What a SITE(sic)!
Oh for crying out loud: do you hunt and peck and spell out every word?
Like many people, I have a typing brain that listens to what I think.
It pays no attention to context, so sometimes it chooses the wrong word.
That's particularly apt to be true when I'm (as usual) multitasking;
it's easy for it to pick up SITE for SIGHT when I'm doing web site work
in one window and reading news in another.
Unfortunately, my proof reading brain is equally detached. Gross
"misteaks" will jump out and be brought to my full attention, but a
perfectly good word like "site" will slip by.
I did happen to notice that after I posted, and I momentarily thought
that some jackass would pick up on it, but no, I said, noone is THAT
petty and ridiculous..
Also: although I don't personally have the problem, bad spelling is no
indication of literacy or intelligence. I do think that the behavior of
people who think otherwise says something about their intelligence however.
Of course, if you think that my comments about tolerance were indicative
of a sub-standard intellect, I can do nothing but bow in the presence of
a greater mind and beg your forgiveness for wasting your very precious
time with my dribbling.
Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------
It is quite obvious that out there on the internet are some persons who have
absolutely nothing else to do to pass away their time except to search through
out the internet for something to find a fault with. Imbedded in their mental
frame work is nothing but negative reactions. In reality they range of all
ages from 10 to 100. The main problem is that their physical body grows but
their mentality remains in a small child status. If you read a post does it
really matter whether you read above or below the original post? "I don't
think so!"
Jack
dave...@spamcop.net
> I did happen to notice that after I posted, and I momentarily thought
> that some jackass would pick up on it, but no, I said, noone is THAT
> petty and ridiculous..
...and just when you think you've overestimated the level of responses,
someone came along to prove what you figured couldn't possibly happen.
It's been said for a long time, and I don't see any sign of it becoming
not true any time soon: any time someone resorts to a speeling flame,
they're conceding the argument.
Dvae Hniz
Jalapeno
wrote:
> If you read a post does it
> really matter whether you read above or below the original post? "I don't
> think, so!"
^
You forgot the comma in your sentence so I added it for you.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> The whole Top Posting stuff reminds me of html mail. It's an
> abomination, it often ticks me off, but there is absolutely no point in
> fighting it. Top posting is generally the wrong thing to do, but like
> html, it isn't ALWAYS wrong, and enough people do it that the rest of us
> just need to bite our tongues and get used to it.
Actually, HTML email *IS ALWAYS WRONG* because it is a violation of the
email standards.
Anything not email should be in an attachment. HTML, not being email,
should never be the body of your message.
It's because people violate standards and software writers don't do
their homework that these threads come up at all.
Communication is more helpful if it occurs in a specific order. When
people alternately top-post in a thread where people are also
doing the traditional (and correct) cite-and-respond, it's very
difficult to tell what is going on.
The reason cite-and-respond works so well is that it preserves the
time-order of the discussion, and it's a standard so that you know what
to expect and how to find your way around in a message. It also forces
you to examine what you are posting, and unless you are a real dolt,
it encourages you to be clear and trim excess material.
Not only does top posting make this harder, many top posters also fail
to use standard quoting characters and things like that.
I don't even like it when people cite-and-respond, but use non-standard
quoting, because it ends up making a mess. Things like using indentation,
other characters, or elaborate quote-decorations all mix methods and
add too much overhead to deciphering a thread.
geech
"Enough" <eno...@idontcare.com> wrote in message
news:jcvG9.261812$fa.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <asdod0$htc$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
> > If you can't stand the site of a six foot penis, don't look at it.
>
>
> --
> Enough <eno...@idontcare.com>
Jack
And at that moment the sentence became ,yours!
Mike Hutchison
>> In article Tartar <repl...@newsgroup.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for expressing my frustration.
>>
>> I've seen yet another thread (one on OS X 10.2.2) degenerate into a top
>> posting/bottom posting flame war, and boy is that annoying.
>>
>> I understand and support the position bottom posters even though
>> otherwise they appear to be devoid of wit and humor. To them I make
>> this plea: Enough already!
>
> don't bother to excise any of the quoted material before posting their
It's called trimming, in this case, excessive trimming.
> one-sentence response. If one is interested in what they have to say,
> one has to scroll to the bottom of a multi-page message. Doe anyone
> really think people are going to read all the quoted material? I say
> phooey on them for a pack of lazy posters!
For the bottom poster clan, I will defend them (cos I'm one of them), and say
this... The ONLY reason why we all should bottom post is that since the dawn
of the English language, everyone has read and written from left to right and
from top to bottom. It's to avoid confusing the reader, by making the text
run on in an expected fashion and not in some kind of hotch-potch of
paragraphs that do not follow on from one another. It's as simple as that.
--
Regards,
Micheal Hutchison
Mad...@graphixmad.plus.com
Mac-Troubleshooter+OE FAQ: www.graphixmad.plus.com
G.E.R.R.Y.
Hutchison <mi...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> For the bottom poster clan, I will defend them (cos I'm one of them), and say
> this... The ONLY reason why we all should bottom post is that since the dawn
> of the English language, everyone has read and written from left to right and
> from top to bottom. It's to avoid confusing the reader, by making the text
> run on in an expected fashion and not in some kind of hotch-potch of
> paragraphs that do not follow on from one another. It's as simple as that.
> --
> Regards,
> Micheal Hutchison
I would expect no less from someone who can't even spell "Michael"
correctly. ;-)
Gerry
nil
wrote:
Why did you follow the usual (unacceptalbe) bottom poster's habit of not
trimming anything? You could have removed all the material between the
asterisks I've added and produced a much better post. (I've not trimmed
your post for puposes of illustration.)
Be that as it may, your reason for bottom-posting doesn't hold water.
************************
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 1:52:58 +0000, jemmy ducks wrote:
>>> In article Tartar <repl...@newsgroup.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for expressing my frustration.
>>>
>>> I've seen yet another thread (one on OS X 10.2.2) degenerate into a
>>> top posting/bottom posting flame war, and boy is that annoying. I
>>> understand and support the position bottom posters even though
>>> otherwise they appear to be devoid of wit and humor. To them I make
>>> this plea: Enough already!
>>
>> I'm with you.
************************
Jay Maynard
<n...@nil.com> wrote:
>Why did you follow the usual (unacceptalbe) bottom poster's habit of not
>trimming anything?
It's neither usual nor acceptable. Trimming quotes is essential to proper
posting, as is interspersing comments with what is being commented on.
>Be that as it may, your reason for bottom-posting doesn't hold water.
Which reason? The posting you quoted had two of them (despite its claim of
only having one), and you didn't indicate which one you were commenting on.
>> For the bottom poster clan, I will defend them (cos I'm one of them),
>> and say this... The ONLY reason why we all should bottom post is that
>> since the dawn of the English language, everyone has read and written
>> from left to right and from top to bottom. It's to avoid confusing
>> the reader, by making the text run on in an expected fashion and not
>> in some kind of hotch-potch of paragraphs that do not follow on from
>> one another. It's as simple as that.
FWIW, the reasons cited by the poster are quite valid.
nil
> In the latest episode of Jeopardy, on Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:54:40 -0000,
> nil <n...@nil.com> wrote:
>>Be that as it may, your reason for bottom-posting doesn't hold water.
>
> Which reason?
Exactly.
Kile Dunkan
> Davoud, my friend, you've found the solution!
>
> In article <281120020920022767%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
t A
o n
p d
l w
e h
f a
t t
r a
i :) b
g o
h u
t t
p t
o h
s a
t t
! ?
> Top, middle AND bottom. Can anyone top that? (Pun intended.)
>
> Tartar
nil
[very little but included everything from several prior posts, even
though none of the material was required as context for his asinine one-
liner]
Why did you follow the bottom-feeding-posting cretins' habit of
including all of the prior content even though _none_ of it was required
to make your one-liner understandable?
<plonk again (I'm on a different machine and forgot to transfer the kill
file)>
Verne Arase
(in message <0001HW.BA1379EF...@usenet.plus.net>):
> For the bottom poster clan, I will defend them (cos I'm one of them), and
> say this... The ONLY reason why we all should bottom post is that since
> the dawn of the English language, everyone has read and written from left
> to right and from top to bottom. It's to avoid confusing the reader, by
> making the text run on in an expected fashion and not in some kind of
> hotch-potch of paragraphs that do not follow on from one another. It's as
> simple as that.
My preference is for bottom posting.
I don't get really militant on top or bottom posting, but will say that if
I'm interested in the topic I'll take the trouble to try and parse out the
message no matter how it's posted.
If I'm only marginally interested - especially if the poster is asking for
help of some sort - if I can't immediately parse out the history, I won't
bother trying to deciper it and will just hit the 'n' key. Bottom posted
messages are *much* easier to decipher.
It's like the three bailments: if this is exclusively for your benefit, you'd
damn well better make it easy on me. If it's mostly for my benefit, post it
in pig latin and I'll try to figure it out.
-- Verne
--
It's not what you don't know that'll hurt you - it's what you _do_ know
that isn't so.