SkriptKiddie Trying something
Paul E. Larson
Ermalee
Sheree
virus
--
Sheree
"Ermalee" <erm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BBB5144...@home.com...
Don D.
some files were damaged and to run scandisk. I did and everything seems to
be ok. I ran Norton and it found nothing.
Don D.
"Sheree" <sher...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:NJKu7.121288$w7.16...@news02.optonline.net...
Carole Dunham
it's a miracle anything comes through.
Carole
cruz...@cruisemates.com
"Paul E. Larson" <whis...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns912E8C6DF8861w...@24.24.0.14...
June
to be one more sick-o's way of having fun. Just a complete pain in the ass,
that's all. Just reboot your system and you will be okay.
June
"Paul E. Larson" <whis...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns912E8C6DF8861w...@24.24.0.14...
Adie
>It is just a script that locks up your system. It is not a virus. It seems
>to be one more sick-o's way of having fun. Just a complete pain in the ass,
>that's all. Just reboot your system and you will be okay.
Will that cure top-posting as well?
Ermalee
Ermalee
Beth Peace
If it's the same one that made the rounds a week or so ago, it's just
a java script that (if your newsreader allows it to run) will open up
new (blank) email messages ad infinitum.
The newest OE won't run it (if you have it set to *not* run java
scripts. It's not a virus or a trojan, just an annoyance.
--
Beth
June
June
"Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote in message
news:b34nrtom8prlk3prm...@4ax.com...
June
we have had discussions on this before in the distant past, I think it is
old hat. If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts that are
"top-posted." I personally think posting below the previous post is a pain.
I don't want to read through an entire old post to get to the new one. If
you do, that's your choice. I was simply trying to help someone who was
worried about having a virus. Too bad rebooting won't get rid of all the
rude and useless posts.
June
"Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote in message
Will that cure top-posting as well?
"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote in message
news:m7Nu7.144721$K6.68208604@news2...
What are you talking about when you say "top-posting?"
June
news:b34nrtom8prlk3prm...@4ax.com...
Ermalee
previous message.
Ermalee <---only read the stuff posted at the top
Ermalee
previous post. I only read the messages that are posted at the top.
Ermalee
June
bad the posting police had to bust me. <vbg>
June
"Ermalee" <erm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BBBA5B7...@home.com...
Miguel Cruz
> If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts that are
> "top-posted." I personally think posting below the previous post is a pain.
> I don't want to read through an entire old post to get to the new one.
You shouldn't have to. Failing to trim quoted text is almost as bad as top
posting.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Matt
Thats why the warning continues to pop up everytime you hit OK or whatever
the button is (I can't recall what it actually said). It's nothing to worry
about.
Matt
"Sheree" <sher...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:NJKu7.121288$w7.16...@news02.optonline.net...
Jeff Connelly
>Too bad rebooting won't get rid of all the
> rude and useless posts.
Yeah, really! heh heh
Matt Aamold
The first clue that it is fake should be that it states "windows has
detected a virus' Windows cannot detect a virus by itself
"Sheree" <sher...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:NJKu7.121288$w7.16...@news02.optonline.net...
Adie
>Nevermind my question. I believe I know what you are talking about, and as
>we have had discussions on this before in the distant past, I think it is
>old hat. If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts that are
>"top-posted."
Should I just ignore the blatant disregard for usenet tradition and
common sence...I think not!
>I personally think posting below the previous post is a pain.
>I don't want to read through an entire old post to get to the new one. If
>you do, that's your choice. I was simply trying to help someone who was
>worried about having a virus.
June, you see how you have edited the formers posts below in an
attempt to make them read in the correct order? Well that's why
top-posting sucks. Someone new to a discussion wont have a clue what
happened in this thread due to your editing and top-posting. You see
how you destroyed the 'quoted text markers' i.e '>' well these give an
idea of the progression of the thread, who said what and when. That
may not be important to you but Usenet is a public forum where your
post may be read by thousands of people, keeping the thread in some
sort of semblance of formatting sanity is not only sensible but
polite too.
Top-posting also doesn't allow for full interaction with the previous
post, how can you make comments on specific details in my post without
making the reader scroll up and down? Bottom posters also post
in-line, like this-
>>som...@somewhere.com
>y...@you.com
m...@me.com
>>someone said
>you said
I comment
>>someone said
>you said
I comment
You see how this gives flexibility and structure?
>Too bad rebooting won't get rid of all the rude and useless posts.
To bad you feel that way, I quite like some of the rude and useless
posts.
>"Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote in message
tm
Ten bucks says she/he doesn't get it.
Adie
We'll see.
fishman
"Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote in message
Could be a long walk for a short dog.
Chris
Steve Horvath
I agree, top posting is the logical, modern way with easy text editors. I
hate it when there are anal 1985-ascii-terminal-"RN"-can't run
vi-netnews-nazis out there that can't let go of the old ways. Why do we
have to read what we already read first? Post new stuff on top, snip out
what you don't need and any quotes you need put below. Simple, easy read.
Nothing wrong with mixed posting either.
>"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote
Steve Horvath
What do appropriate markings have to do with top or bottom posting?
Just top posted, everything in proper context!
The only thing I had to do was stick a single chevron in front of
Adie...wrote... but the reader failed to do that before I placed my pointer
top or bottom.
Let's get out of the 80s.
> "Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote
>
> >>som...@somewhere.com
> >y...@you.com
> m...@me.com
>
> >>someone said
> >you said
> I comment
> >>someone said
> >you said
> I comment
>
> You see how this gives flexibility and structure?
Yes.
Steve Horvath
Steve Horvath
is easier to read, but it doesn't outweigh the convenience of top posting,
and reading other people's top posts. Yes, I have to move Wolfgang's ID
down to his paragraph, otherwise it would have been above June's. Still
worth the effort.
The reason the 'append to the bottom' practice (ok, I admit I'm guessing
here but I bet I'm not far off) is because of old technology. When usenet
started the 'mouse' may have been invented but was new and not common, so
they couldn't assume a pointer to anywhere on the screen and insrerting
text, thus either top or bottom. The developers also couldn't assume you
had a screen editor like vi or emacs for UNIX, and whatever they had
similarly in MVS or VMS. So, they would assume you could append to the
bottom of the file with a line editor, a la unix 'ed.'
It would be nice if newsreaders just quoted in reverse, let new stuff bubble
to the top. Why?? So you don't have to read stuff in reverse chronological
order.
Let me put it to you another way. Those of you (probably 99.9% of you now)
who use e-mail in business... when you reply do you "top-reply?" I'll bet
every single one of you do, because you know people that are relatively new
to e-mail say in the last 5 years, will not think to scroll down. They'll
think you just forwarded someone else's mail. Sounds silly to do it any
other way in the context of e-mail doesn't it?
Well I first was turned on to usenet in '87 and did it the trad. way, but
now that many readers are integrated with email... well never mind, there
will always be stalwarts.
(BTW, there is no plural 'emails,' just as there are no plural [snail]
'mails' on that I'm old school :-)
> > "June" <s...@noway.com> wrote in news:0eNu7.144724$K6.68216799@news2:
>
> I have to jump in here ...
>
> > I think
> > it is old hat. If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts
> > that are "top-posted." I personally think posting below the previous
> > post is a pain. I don't want to read through an entire old post to get
> > to the new one.
>"Wolfgang Schwanke" <wolfi.KEI...@snafu.de
> The point of quoting in email and usenet is to address the previous
posting
> phrase-by-phrase and reply in context, like I'm doing here. "Top posting"
> is originally a result of lazy editing: Someone used the automatic quoting
> function of their software, but they didn't bother to edit/delete the
> quoted part in context. That's quite pointless because the original idea
of
> quoting is lost. The sender knows what he/she wrote anyway, no point in
> quoting it back uncommented to them, just a waste of bandwidth. It's quite
> a bizarre twist that now there are people around who view this bad style
as
> good and vice versa :).
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> --
> wo...@snafu.de | wo...@techno.de | wo...@deltatag.de
> IRC: wolfi|anorak http://www.deltatag.de/~wolfi/
> Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt
> Alle Menschen werden Brüder Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt
MOD
<sjho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I agree, top posting is the logical, modern way with easy text editors. I
>hate it when there are anal 1985-ascii-terminal-"RN"-can't run
>vi-netnews-nazis out there that can't let go of the old ways. Why do we
>have to read what we already read first? Post new stuff on top, snip out
>what you don't need and any quotes you need put below. Simple, easy read.
>Nothing wrong with mixed posting either.
>
inline is the preferred method, top-posting is ok OCCASIONALLY, and
only for general replies that don't pertain to any specific part of
the message... bottom posting is even more annoying then
top-posting... for any sizeable discussing, in-line is the proper
etiquet, and always has been, top and bottom posting are frowned on
primarily because they make longer debates much harder to read... it's
been that way for a long time, and nothing has changed that effects
it, other then people being either rude, and/or lazy.
>>"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote
>> Nevermind my question. I believe I know what you are talking about, and as
>> we have had discussions on this before in the distant past, I think it is
>> old hat. If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts that are
>> "top-posted." I personally think posting below the previous post is a
>pain.
>
>
--Warning, In the case of political opinions, I feel
--it is important that all sides be considered, and
--am therefore likely to take a side I do not agree
--with if only so that it recieves proper
--consideration. Thank you for the Debate *MOD
-* The WarLorDz BBS NNTP Discussion Server
news://warlordz.darktech.org
-* The WarLorDz Realm <MUD Server>
telnet://warlordz.darktech.org:29
Robert Briggs
>
> I agree, top posting is the logical, modern way with easy text editors. I
> hate it when there are anal 1985-ascii-terminal-"RN"-can't run
> vi-netnews-nazis out there that can't let go of the old ways. Why do we
> have to read what we already read first? Post new stuff on top, snip out
> what you don't need and any quotes you need put below. Simple, easy read.
> Nothing wrong with mixed posting either.
Not at all, Steve.
As has been said by others, Usenet does NOT guarantee that (A) all posts
will reach your server, or (B) that those which do arrive will arrive in
the correct order.
When I'm reading proper, bottom-posted responses it is a trivial
exercise to scan the quoted text and decide whether I have seen the text
before *and* am sufficiently familiar with it not to have to reread it.
If at any point something in the new text makes me want to refer to the
quoted text that gave rise to it, all I have to do is to scan a little
way up the page, just as I would do when reading a transcript of an
interview in a magazine.
The convention is that the reader should be able to start from the top
of the post, knowing NOTHING about the history of the thread, read each
word in sequence, and find that the whole thing makes sense.
Your top-posting means that the background to your comment comes *after*
it, which is somewhat bizarre, to say the least.
In this case, I would have snipped June's text entirely if the way you
quoted it didn't show an error you have made more than once.
> >"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote
> > Nevermind my question...
What did June write?
Just "Nevermind my question..."
The attribution line is part of *your* text, where *you* make the
assertion the June wrote the text that follows.
Therefore you should not, nay, must not, add the extra chevron to the
attribution line that your news software supplies.
Your quotation of June's text should have appeared thus in your own
article:
"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote
> Nevermind my question...
Ermalee
this method. I find it much easier to read with my news reader.
Ermalee <--would also respond "item by item" when necessary
Robert Briggs
> inline is the preferred method
What? Like this?
> top-posting is ok OCCASIONALLY, and only for general replies that
> don't pertain to any specific part of the message...
IMO, the main good use of "top-posting" is when you wish to make an
introductory comment before going on to make in-line remarks. In fact,
I would say that this type of "top-posting" is really a variation of
inline posting.
> bottom posting is even more annoying then top-posting...
ISTM that bottom-posting and in-line posting are very closely related.
In in-line posting, the key feature is the pattern:
> previous poster's first assertion
my first comment
> previous poster's second assertion
my second comment
:
> previous poster's final assertion
my final comment
--
my signature (optional)
"Pure" bottom-posting is simply the minimum useful form of this pattern.
> for any sizeable discussing, in-line is the proper etiquet
I agree almost entirely; except that I think of in-line posting as a
variation on bottom-posting (since each of my comments is posted at the
bottom of the fragment that inspired it), and this here Concise Oxford
doesn't recognise "etiquet" (but does recognise "etiquette").
John Davis
any extra weight, but I myself prefer top posting.
John
Ermalee wrote -
John Davis
someone states something then someone else comes along and comments on every
other sentence. I would much rather the person just say what they have to say,
put it in as few a words as possible, plop it at the top and trim as much as
you can off the previous post and then post. If a post has page after page of
argument and counter-argument, I just don't read it.
John
Robert wrote -
Robert Briggs
>
> So it's out of chronological order now. Ok, I admit in-chronological
> order is easier to read, but it doesn't outweigh the convenience of top
> posting, and reading other people's top posts.
Oh!
What is the purpose of posting to Usenet?
I've always been under the impression that it is to bounce your ideas
off other Usenetters to mutual benefit - in other words, to
*communicate*.
Communication is improved by making things easier to read, is it not?
Methinks you are hoist with your own petard.
> Yes, I have to move Wolfgang's ID down to his paragraph, otherwise it
> would have been above June's. Still worth the effort.
Do you like making work for yourself?
> The reason the 'append to the bottom' practice (ok, I admit I'm guessing
> here but I bet I'm not far off) is because of old technology. When usenet
> started the 'mouse' may have been invented but was new and not common, so
> they couldn't assume a pointer to anywhere on the screen and insrerting
> text, thus either top or bottom. The developers also couldn't assume you
> had a screen editor like vi or emacs for UNIX, and whatever they had
> similarly in MVS or VMS. So, they would assume you could append to the
> bottom of the file with a line editor, a la unix 'ed.'
That doesn't wash.
Back in the days when screen editors were less common, the users of line
editors were quite capable of using them to correct errors near the top
of their computer programs - almost as easily as they could add new code
at the end.
Screen editors and mice make life slightly easier, I admit, but editing
text using a line editor on an old teletype is no big deal.
> It would be nice if newsreaders just quoted in reverse, let new stuff
> bubble to the top. Why?? So you don't have to read stuff in reverse
> chronological order.
Huh?
The top-posting you espouse places things in reverse chronological
order, yet you say you don't want read it that way ...
> Those of you ... who use e-mail in business... when you reply do you
> "top-reply?" I'll bet every single one of you do
I don't.
I have two normal ways of replying.
If a simple response is adequate, I reply without the history, and rely
on the original sender to know what he wrote.
If a more detailed technical response is appropriate, I start with a
simple introduction and then address the sender's text point-by-point,
as in this Usenet article.
> Sounds silly to do it any other way in the context of e-mail doesn't it?
I leave you to deduce my response to that.
Richard C. Steiner
>I agree, top posting is the logical, modern way with easy text editors.
It's useful for quick one-shot replies, but not as useful (IMO, of course)
for extended conversations.
>I hate it when there are anal 1985-ascii-terminal-"RN"-can't run
>vi-netnews-nazis out there that can't let go of the old ways.
Keep in mind that some of us have seen and used a wide variety of quoting
methods over the years, and that our preferences are based on experience
in different contexts.
While I don't go out of my way to criticize top-posters, I do believe that
interleaved quoted material and text can be easier to read in some cases.
>Why do we have to read what we already read first?
Because many USENET postings tend to follow a "question/response" pattern,
and it makes sense to see the question before the answer. That's why FAQ
documents tend to follow the same general format.
>Nothing wrong with mixed posting either.
If my "mixed posting" you refer to the style I'm using, I find I prefer it
for extended conversations.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
Written online using slrn 0.9.5.4!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Ermalee
Actually it was the other John. I don't know how Roland feels about it.
Thanks, John.
Ermalee <--thinking ng founder's preference carries a lot of weight :-)
Lou Minatti™
Top posting is really annoying. Why do some people continue to top post,
even though they know it's difficult to follow? I mean, what's the
point, especially if you're commenting point-by-point?
--
Lou's Bullshit Detector!
http://www.watchingyou.com/bullsht.html
Steve Horvath
> "Robert Briggs" <Robert...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote in message
> >Steve Horvath wrote:
> Communication is improved by making things easier to read, is it not?
correct. intermingled is fine too, i do that sometimes when approp, as in
now. If I respond with one thought to an entire post, then it makes sense
to top post. strict bottom appending is annoying and a waste of bandwidth
esp. when not edited (and most people don't snip, yet their ettiquite is
better than mine, go figure- 50kb with "me too." at the bottom).
> Methinks you are hoist with your own petard.
possibly, and you too with tradition. you know darned well it's a waste to
re-read what you've read before. the idea is that you're following a
thread, you know something about it, you don't need to review the whole
history every time. if you forget something look back at the thread
(separate message, email or usenet).
> > bubble to the top. Why?? So you don't have to read stuff in reverse
> > chronological order.
>
> Huh?
>
> The top-posting you espouse places things in reverse chronological
> order, yet you say you don't want read it that way ...
right i forgot, time only moves in one direction, unless you're looking at
history. a
maybe I should have said reverse-progress-order?
<multiple>steps-backward-in-progress(been there, read that)-one-forward??
> > Those of you ... who use e-mail in business... when you reply do you
> > "top-reply?" I'll bet every single one of you do
>
> I don't.
You must work with seasoned computing folks. You mentioned intermingled,
and I've seen it, but answer... do you see many bottom-reply e-mail
messages?
Just a diff of opinion. Beating to my own drum today perhaps... I do agree
with you on one thing: I am hoist on this.
Would like a peek at your sent/outbox to see if I can find a top-reply email
:-)
Steve
P.S. My fault here, but you know what they say about arguing on the
internet.
Bob Myers
"Matt Aamold" <Ma...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:3bbbf...@news.nwlink.com...
> You didn't have a virus. It's an annoying script written by a bored
person.
> The first clue that it is fake should be that it states "windows has
> detected a virus' Windows cannot detect a virus by itself
Right. Windows can only BEHAVE like a virus by itself.
Bob M.
Steve Horvath
"Robert Briggs" <Robert...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote
> Not at all, Steve.
>
> As has been said by others, Usenet does NOT guarantee that (A) all posts
> will reach your server, or (B) that those which do arrive will arrive in
> the correct order.
>
> When I'm reading proper, bottom-posted responses it is a trivial
> exercise to scan the quoted text and decide whether I have seen the text
> before *and* am sufficiently familiar with it not to have to reread it.
Ok forget about intermixed replies for a second. Back to bottom posting.
Regarding reply text, single message, not threads. What if the convention
was simply reversed? Top-posting, preserving linearity.... Regardless of
when newsfeeds are propogated and reach your server, one can't reply to
something that doesn't yet exist. I think from a human factors stand point,
the "present" on top and the "past" down below is easier, and human nature
just lets it happen in e-mail.
Regarding intermixed, I think it gets crazy with more than two people
involved.
> The attribution line is part of *your* text, where *you* make the
> assertion the June wrote the text that follows.
Well ok, my twisted logic again, the marks lineup with the attribute
and the right person's stuff when I modify it...
>> Harry wrote:
> Jane wrote:
>> (Harry's stuff)
> (Jane's stuff)
I can follow this
***************** when the system does it ************
Harry wrote:
> Jane wrote:
> (Harry's stuff)
> > (Jane's stuff)
You have to think add one all the time to the attribute, now get three or
four going???
Well f* me, why not just make it match? Who cares about who's
interpretations of what..
Sorry, but I'm a "Keep It Simple, Sir" kind of guy.
But it looks like I'm losing my special olympics race, I lost *and* am still
a petard.
June
posted." There is still a bunch of old crap I don't want to read. Reading
bottom posted messages is just a pain in the ass.
June
June
You can go on and on about the common "sence" you find in bottom posting,
and how it's "tradition." Tradition? What from 1996 or so? WOW! That's some
rich heritage. Sorry, as some have said before me, Usenet is the new "old
west." If you don't like it, pardner, move on outta town.
June
"Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote in message
news:pdunrtg45kjd5368h...@4ax.com...
June
the crosspost. Buh bye!
PLONK!
"tm" <tmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tmoero-D75D30....@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp...
June
"Adie" <no...@nada.con> wrote in message
news:tt7ortgu8qsklfpdt...@4ax.com...
June
June
"John Davis" <wolfp...@aol.com.gopack> wrote in message
news:20011004132450...@mb-fc.aol.com...
devil
>
> Adie,
> You can go on and on about the common "sence" you find in bottom posting,
> and how it's "tradition." Tradition? What from 1996 or so? WOW! That's some
> rich heritage. Sorry, as some have said before me, Usenet is the new "old
> west." If you don't like it, pardner, move on outta town.
This person appears to be quite clueless. Probably has no idea about
what Internet is, vs. Usenet etc. From 1996? Some of us have been
around since at least ten years earlier
As to her quotation technique, I believe this is the incomprehensible
way she "quoted" a previous article. Actually claiming what the poster
she meant to quote said...
Of course, next she claims her clueless ways are the way of the
future... Talk about dumbing things down...
Rosalie B.
>Me too. One of the founders of the rec.travel.cruises also supports
>this method. I find it much easier to read with my news reader.
>
>Ermalee <--would also respond "item by item" when necessary
If I don't see anything new in the first screen or so of stuff, I usually
delete the post without scanning down - there's either entirely too much
quoted stuff or the thread isn't interesting enough for me to spend time on
it.
>
>Steve Horvath wrote:
>>
>> I agree, top posting is the logical, modern way with easy text editors. I
>> hate it when there are anal 1985-ascii-terminal-"RN"-can't run
>> vi-netnews-nazis out there that can't let go of the old ways. Why do we
>> have to read what we already read first? Post new stuff on top, snip out
>> what you don't need and any quotes you need put below. Simple, easy read.
>> Nothing wrong with mixed posting either.
>>
>> >"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote
>> > Nevermind my question. I believe I know what you are talking about, and as
>> > we have had discussions on this before in the distant past, I think it is
>> > old hat. If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts that are
>> > "top-posted." I personally think posting below the previous post is a
>> pain.
grandma Rosalie
David Hatunen
devil <de...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>June wrote:
>>
>> Adie, You can go on and on about the common "sence" you find in
>> bottom posting, and how it's "tradition." Tradition? What from
>> 1996 or so? WOW! That's some rich heritage. Sorry, as some have
>> said before me, Usenet is the new "old west." If you don't like
>> it, pardner, move on outta town.
>
>This person appears to be quite clueless. Probably has no idea
>about what Internet is, vs. Usenet etc. From 1996? Some of us
>have been around since at least ten years earlier
I believe Usenet preceded the Internet since it was never a solely
Internet based system, although it is now largely carried on the
Interent. And, of course, the Internet preceded the World Wide Web
by many, many years; some people actually think the Web is the
Internet. There are still a lot of us long-time Internet users who
have decidedly mixed feelings about the Web, and especially about
graphics-based web browsers; lynx worked nicely on teh web until
they started loading it with all those useless grpahics.
Anyway, bottom posting has always been the standard. Of course, we
always assumed that posters would be bright enough to remove all
excess quotes, leaving only the relevant parts. this has the
additional advantage of allowing interpolated point-by-point
response, something impossible with top posting.
>As to her quotation technique, I believe this is the
>incomprehensible way she "quoted" a previous article. Actually
>claiming what the poster she meant to quote said...
>
>Of course, next she claims her clueless ways are the way of the
>future... Talk about dumbing things down...
It's actually laziness. It allows shoot from the hip posting
without having to go through the quoted message point by point,
deciding what's relevant and what isn't.
[Lot's of bottom quoted stuff deleted]
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Miguel Cruz
> You can go on and on about the common "sence" you find in bottom posting,
> and how it's "tradition." Tradition? What from 1996 or so? WOW! That's some
> rich heritage. Sorry, as some have said before me, Usenet is the new "old
> west." If you don't like it, pardner, move on outta town.
Huh? By 1996 I'd been using usenet for almost 10 years. Get some
perspective.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Miguel Cruz
Huh? You didn't even quote text; who knows what was original and what was
added. Bizarre. Then again, if it is your goal to be deliberately obtuse...
Don D.
others like to bottom post. Why doesn't everyone just let it be. If you
don't like to read top posts - don't. If you don't like to read bottom
posts - don't. No one is going to change so let it be.
Don D.
"June" <s...@noway.com> wrote in message
news:t05v7.146924$K6.69268690@news2...
Charles
wrote:
> Nice to hear your take on this John. That makes two (out of 3) of you.
> Actually it was the other John. I don't know how Roland feels about it.
> Thanks, John.
What does it matter what the founders of rec.travel.cruises think? This
is Usenet. Usenet existed before rec.travel.cruises of which it is
r.t.c a part. The Usenet tradition is bottem posting. You certainly are
able to thumb your nose at Usenet tradition and no one will stop you
from doing lazy top posting which takes the context out of posts. What
you really want to do is chat instead of discuss. There are chat rooms
for that.
--
Charles
Elisabeth Bouynot
hat...@bolt.sonic.net says...
> It's actually laziness. It allows shoot from the hip posting
> without having to go through the quoted message point by point,
> deciding what's relevant and what isn't.
I know a few posters who bottom-post but _never_ snip. Which seems to be
just as lazy as top-posting.
Elisabeth
Richard C. Steiner
>You can go on and on about the common "sence" you find in bottom posting,
>and how it's "tradition." Tradition? What from 1996 or so? WOW! That's some
>rich heritage.
FWIW, USENET was quite well established back in 1991 when I ran into it
for the first time. Even store-and-forward BBS networks like Fido have
an interleaved quoting tradition that predates 1990.
Learn more about the medium you're using before criticizing its denizens.
>Sorry, as some have said before me, Usenet is the new "old west." If you
>don't like it, pardner, move on outta town.
Perhaps you need to consider your own advice? ;-)
Richard C. Steiner
>This battle goes on every once in a while. Some people like to top post and
>others like to bottom post. Why doesn't everyone just let it be.
Such threads are an opportunity to educate.
Ermalee
gone around r.t.c. many times in the past few years. Top posting is
still my preference.
Ermalee
Ermalee
posts. This time, June, I had to scan down to see what bets were
on.
Ermalee <---get it, but still prefers top posting
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>This battle goes on every once in a while. Some people like to top post and
>others like to bottom post. Why doesn't everyone just let it be. If you
>don't like to read top posts - don't. If you don't like to read bottom
>posts - don't. No one is going to change so let it be.
>
In any event, could you all please remove rec.sport.golf from the
crossposts? Thanks.
June
no freaking identity but some childish pseudonym. Never claimed my ways are
the way of the future. I just put nicely what I really meant -- that if you
don't like it -- fuck off.
Can you understand THAT? Usenet is public -- it's not meant to be a place
for whiney babies that want everything their way -- even if they can't spell
or express themselves lucidly -- or read. You are not a member of the
"posting police." There is no posting police. Get OVER it.
June
"devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3BBCDF25...@attglobal.net...
June
June
June
June
"Don D." <som...@someone.net> wrote in message
news:zJ5v7.1207$Xj1.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
tm
> Trimming doesn't "get it," when trying to read posts that are "bottom
> posted." There is still a bunch of old crap I don't want to read. Reading
> bottom posted messages is just a pain in the ass.
>
> June
Pay up, Adie.
Charles
> No no, Miguel. I'm trimming, you see!
Whether you bottom or top post it is lame that you are copying text
without using a quote string.
--
Charles
tm
> Well ok, my twisted logic again, the marks lineup with the attribute
> and the right person's stuff when I modify it...
>
> >> Harry wrote:
> > Jane wrote:
> >> (Harry's stuff)
> > (Jane's stuff)
>
> I can follow this
>
> ***************** when the system does it ************
>
> Harry wrote:
> > Jane wrote:
> > (Harry's stuff)
> > > (Jane's stuff)
>
> You have to think add one all the time to the attribute,
Ah, i see your problem now. Thinking.
tm
> No no, Miguel. I'm trimming, you see!
>
> June
Nice work June. I'm sure miguel will apreciatte you appropriating his
words. Say, how did you get an e-mail addy from a Kuwaiti? That's pretty
cool.
MOD
<Robert...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote:
>MOD wrote:
>
>> inline is the preferred method
>
>What? Like this?
>
laf, exactly
>> top-posting is ok OCCASIONALLY, and only for general replies that
>> don't pertain to any specific part of the message...
>
>IMO, the main good use of "top-posting" is when you wish to make an
>introductory comment before going on to make in-line remarks. In fact,
>I would say that this type of "top-posting" is really a variation of
>inline posting.
>
I OCCASIONALLY use top posting, but it's very rare, and as you stated,
is usually in conjunction with inline
>> bottom posting is even more annoying then top-posting...
>
>ISTM that bottom-posting and in-line posting are very closely related.
>
>In in-line posting, the key feature is the pattern:
>
there I'd have to disagree... inline, and bottom are related only when
the quoted text is well snipped, or the quoted text is short to begin
with... I for one will rarely scroll all the way to the bottom of a
1000 line message to see what the next person said... I'll scroll thru
it for inline, but, using bottom posting as a practice <not inline> is
actually more annoying then <some> top posting
>I agree almost entirely; except that I think of in-line posting as a
>variation on bottom-posting (since each of my comments is posted at the
>bottom of the fragment that inspired it), and this here Concise Oxford
>doesn't recognise "etiquet" (but does recognise "etiquette").
I know, my spelling is horrendous, and I haven't spotted an auto-spell
check feature in agent yet <although there is a spell check
feature>...I'm just spoiled by outlook checking my e-mail for me :)
--Warning, In the case of political opinions, I feel
--it is important that all sides be considered, and
--am therefore likely to take a side I do not agree
--with if only so that it recieves proper
--consideration. Thank you for the Debate *MOD
-* The WarLorDz BBS NNTP Discussion Server
news://warlordz.darktech.org
-* The WarLorDz Realm <MUD Server>
telnet://warlordz.darktech.org:29
John Davis
discussion. Seems to me it has alot to do with what type of reply you are
posting. If you are simply answering someone's question (which quite a few of
the r.t.c. posts are), then top posting does the trick quite well. Just put
your answer at the top and trim off most of the quoted post to just give the
gist of the question. If you are carrying on some long involved debate though
that is going back and forth for eternitiy, then inline posting is the way to
go. I see no use for bottom posting at all though.
I like top posting because I usually use XNews to read my newsgroups and have
an article index at the top and the article display at the bottom. I can
quickly scan thru messages just seeing the top of the message and if it's one
I'm interested in reading, then I'll scroll down and read the entire thing.
Makes reading newsgroups a lot quicker.
MOD
<sjho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So it's out of chronological order now. Ok, I admit in-chronological order
>is easier to read, but it doesn't outweigh the convenience of top posting,
>and reading other people's top posts. Yes, I have to move Wolfgang's ID
>down to his paragraph, otherwise it would have been above June's. Still
>worth the effort.
>
>The reason the 'append to the bottom' practice (ok, I admit I'm guessing
>here but I bet I'm not far off) is because of old technology. When usenet
>started the 'mouse' may have been invented but was new and not common, so
>they couldn't assume a pointer to anywhere on the screen and insrerting
>text, thus either top or bottom. The developers also couldn't assume you
>had a screen editor like vi or emacs for UNIX, and whatever they had
>similarly in MVS or VMS. So, they would assume you could append to the
>bottom of the file with a line editor, a la unix 'ed.'
>
actually, the annoyance at top posting/bottom posting stems from BBSs
<I believe>.. most packages didn't auto-quote, and it was SERIOUSLY
frowned upon to not quote as most message systems were not threaded.
to quote you usually typed '/q' and chose a range of lines.
With poorly made news readers <outlook/netscape> top posting does look
better, and flow better, but plain and simple, those programs are
horrid to day the least.
>It would be nice if newsreaders just quoted in reverse, let new stuff bubble
>to the top. Why?? So you don't have to read stuff in reverse chronological
>order.
>
so you need to read the most recent first? yuck... that's fine if
you're reading a thread after it's complete, but if you keep up with a
lot of newsgroups on a daily or twice daily basis, it would drive you
insane. The 'average' reader isn't as annoyed by top posting, it's
the people who read a lot of groups/posts, and don't have the time to
bounce around trying to figured out what's going on.
>Let me put it to you another way. Those of you (probably 99.9% of you now)
>who use e-mail in business... when you reply do you "top-reply?" I'll bet
>every single one of you do, because you know people that are relatively new
>to e-mail say in the last 5 years, will not think to scroll down. They'll
>think you just forwarded someone else's mail. Sounds silly to do it any
>other way in the context of e-mail doesn't it?
>
I try not to correspond with people that still don't understand how to
use their computers.
>Well I first was turned on to usenet in '87 and did it the trad. way, but
>now that many readers are integrated with email... well never mind, there
>will always be stalwarts.
and poorly designed. ever try to read a .bin group with outlook or
netscape? or set up 'subscriptions' they are a nightmare compared to a
decent news reader.
>
>(BTW, there is no plural 'emails,' just as there are no plural [snail]
>'mails' on that I'm old school :-)
>
>
>> > "June" <s...@noway.com> wrote in news:0eNu7.144724$K6.68216799@news2:
>>
>> I have to jump in here ...
>>
>> > I think
>> > it is old hat. If you don't like "top-posting," don't read the posts
>> > that are "top-posted." I personally think posting below the previous
>> > post is a pain. I don't want to read through an entire old post to get
>> > to the new one.
>
>>"Wolfgang Schwanke" <wolfi.KEI...@snafu.de
>> The point of quoting in email and usenet is to address the previous
>posting
>> phrase-by-phrase and reply in context, like I'm doing here. "Top posting"
>> is originally a result of lazy editing: Someone used the automatic quoting
>> function of their software, but they didn't bother to edit/delete the
>> quoted part in context. That's quite pointless because the original idea
>of
>> quoting is lost. The sender knows what he/she wrote anyway, no point in
>> quoting it back uncommented to them, just a waste of bandwidth. It's quite
>> a bizarre twist that now there are people around who view this bad style
>as
>> good and vice versa :).
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> --
>> wo...@snafu.de | wo...@techno.de | wo...@deltatag.de
>> IRC: wolfi|anorak http://www.deltatag.de/~wolfi/
>> Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt
>> Alle Menschen werden Brüder Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt
Robert Briggs
> Don D. wrote:
>
> > This battle goes on every once in a while. Some people like to top post
> > and others like to bottom post. Why doesn't everyone just let it be.
>
> Such threads are an opportunity to educate.
But how well does it work? :-|
Peter Strauss
topic to rec.sport.golf?
Thanks very much.
Peter
Lunyma
>topic to rec.sport.golf?
It appears to me that these messages are getting cross posted over SEVERAL
groups. You're not alone!
Pam : )
Official Virtual Cruise Director
http://allcruiseauction.atinfopop.com/
http://www.allcruiseauction.com/html/categories.htm
Sue Whitfield
too I just will scroll down, but just delete messages that add on at the
bottom of all the rhetoric
--
Susette Whitfield-ACC
www.cruiseoutlets.com - A Vacation.com agency
(800) 853-9515
Miguel Cruz
> Well I first was turned on to usenet in '87 and did it the trad. way, but
> now that many readers are integrated with email... well never mind, there
> will always be stalwarts.
Given that combo newsreaders/mailers are slow, cumbersome, inflexible, and
sorely lacking in features, I can see why the stalwarts exist.
> (BTW, there is no plural 'emails,' just as there are no plural [snail]
> 'mails' on that I'm old school :-)
What's the plural of "Walkman"?
miguel
Richard C. Steiner
>Steve Horvath <sjho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well I first was turned on to usenet in '87 and did it the trad. way, but
>> now that many readers are integrated with email... well never mind, there
>> will always be stalwarts.
>
>Given that combo newsreaders/mailers are slow, cumbersome, inflexible, and
>sorely lacking in features, I can see why the stalwarts exist.
Not all of them. I use Yarn at home (a SOUP packet mail/news reader), and
it's much more like conventional newsreaders than the abomimations that MS
and Netscape have created. Even does scoring relatively well.
David Hatunen
I couldn't agree more. Proper trimming of quotes is always good to
do, except that with top posting it seems to make less sense.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Karina Wright
"Miguel Cruz" <sp...@un.u.nu> wrote in message
news:dJmv7.3467$b7.5...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> What's the plural of "Walkman"?
Now you've hurt my head....
June
June
"Charles" <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote in message
news:041020012201338318%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid...
June
June
"tm" <tmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tmoero-2E1BBC....@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp...
June
misspelling the words it takes to call you that. There are a bunch of morons
who have decided to tell everyone what they are allowed to do.
June
" Sue Whitfield" <cruise...@snip.net> wrote in message
news:trrtf6o...@corp.supernews.com...
tm
> You are a waste of time. PLONK!
Crybaby.
But seriously June, a person with your interpersonal skills should be
very careful about forging e-mails. Personally, I enjoy reading your
simple-minded posts, but others may not be as tolerant. I'd hate to see
you lose your @home account, thus depriving me of entertainment (the
drama-queen 'PLONK' sent shivers down my spine, you go girl!).
Go in peace my little friend,
TM
Charles
> I didn't "copy" text.
See the quote string indictor in front of the line of quoted text above
in this post? That is missing in your posts. Either you are cutting and
pasting the text or you don't have your newsreader set up right.
--
Charles
tm
> June <s...@noway.com> wrote:
> > I didn't "copy" text.
>
> See the quote string indictor in front of the line of quoted text above
> in this post? That is missing in your posts. Either you are cutting and
> pasting the text or you don't have your newsreader set up right.
heh. There is another possibility.
Rosalie B.
>Steve Horvath <sjho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well I first was turned on to usenet in '87 and did it the trad. way, but
>> now that many readers are integrated with email... well never mind, there
>> will always be stalwarts.
>
>Given that combo newsreaders/mailers are slow, cumbersome, inflexible, and
>sorely lacking in features, I can see why the stalwarts exist.
>
I've used a variety of them, and I like the one I have now and don't
consider it slow or cumbersome or lacking in features (which is kind of the
same as inflexible). I don't care for Outlook Express or some of the
others, but I don't see how you can condemn them ALL.
grandma Rosalie
Miguel Cruz
>> and sorely lacking in features, I can see why the stalwarts exist.
>
> What combo readers/mailers are you talking about?
>
> I've used a variety of them, and I like the one I have now and don't
> consider it slow or cumbersome or lacking in features (which is kind of
> the same as inflexible). I don't care for Outlook Express or some of the
> others, but I don't see how you can condemn them ALL.
I have to confess that the only ones I've experienced have been Outlook
Express and Netscape Communicator. Which ones were good?
I don't use Windows, so I've never tried Agent. But I didn't realize it was
a mail client too.
Rosalie B.
>>> Given that combo newsreaders/mailers are slow, cumbersome, inflexible,
>>> and sorely lacking in features, I can see why the stalwarts exist.
>>
>> What combo readers/mailers are you talking about?
>>
>> I've used a variety of them, and I like the one I have now and don't
>> consider it slow or cumbersome or lacking in features (which is kind of
>> the same as inflexible). I don't care for Outlook Express or some of the
>> others, but I don't see how you can condemn them ALL.
>
>I have to confess that the only ones I've experienced have been Outlook
>Express and Netscape Communicator. Which ones were good?
>
>I don't use Windows, so I've never tried Agent. But I didn't realize it was
>a mail client too.
>
I hate both Outlook Express and Netscape as mail programs, and I don't like
Eudora either. (or AOL come to that). I do use Agent. I think Free
Agent is only newsgroups (it's been a long time since I used it) but Agent
is both, and has lots of features.
grandma Rosalie
Marco
>
> You are a waste of time. PLONK!
>
> June
Why do people feel it necessary to announce publicly that they are going
to kill file someone? Do they think the person being kill filed will
make a public apology and plead not to be kill filed? Do they think
people nod their heads and say "Yeah, that guy deserved it June. You
kicked his *ass*. Nice filter work, babe."
Guess what? Nobody here cares who the hell is in your kill file.
Pretty sad...
Cordially,
--
Marco
mar...@home.com
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
Marco wrote:
>
> June wrote:
> >
> > You are a waste of time. PLONK!
> >
> > June
>
> Why do people feel it necessary to announce publicly that they are going
> to kill file someone? Do they think the person being kill filed will
> make a public apology and plead not to be kill filed?
No, but they may think that if enough people follow suit,
the "plonkee" will go elsehwere?
dvus
"Steve Horvath" <sjho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9pia13$n...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com...
> correct. intermingled is fine too, i do that sometimes when approp, as in
> now. If I respond with one thought to an entire post, then it makes sense
> to top post. strict bottom appending is annoying and a waste of bandwidth
> esp. when not edited (and most people don't snip, yet their ettiquite is
> better than mine, go figure- 50kb with "me too." at the bottom).
Little late, here, but I just found this thread. Anyhow, if you
can understand why "intermingling" is common sense if one is
replying to multiple points, as in:
> Comment A
your reply to Comment A
> Comment B
your reply to Comment B
(etc.)
...then why, (if there is only "Comment A"), is it sensible to do:
your reply to Comment A
> Comment A
Since English is read left to right and top to bottom, why is it
some peoples contention that this convention is best suspended
when replying on Usenet?
> possibly, and you too with tradition. you know darned well it's a waste to
> re-read what you've read before. the idea is that you're following a
> thread, you know something about it, you don't need to review the whole
> history every time. if you forget something look back at the thread
> (separate message, email or usenet).
Except that others may wish to jump into the thread not
wishing to re-read from the beginning. If people have
been posting their comments after that to which they
are replying it is trivial to read and comprehend whatever
is written there. Throw in a few top-posters and the
continuity disappears in a hurry.
> right i forgot, time only moves in one direction, unless you're looking at
> history. a
>
> maybe I should have said reverse-progress-order?
> <multiple>steps-backward-in-progress(been there, read that)-one-forward??
> You must work with seasoned computing folks. You mentioned intermingled,
> and I've seen it, but answer... do you see many bottom-reply e-mail
> messages?
>
> Just a diff of opinion. Beating to my own drum today perhaps... I do agree
> with you on one thing: I am hoist on this.
>
> Would like a peek at your sent/outbox to see if I can find a top-reply email
Why? Email is not Usenet. Email is one-to-one, Usenet
is one-to-many.
--
dvus