Top posters This month Nov 2009
Southern Gospel News Updates
15 da...@example.com
14 j...@example.invalid
13 no....@no.where.no_spam.co.uk
13 newshel...@gmail.com
13 billu...@nospam.net
12 v...@nguard.lh
12 audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca
11 nob...@spamcop.net
11 inca...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com
All time 13473 anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com
6866 r...@mvps.org
5421 sharonf...@etemvps.org
5160 u...@#notme.com
4088 kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain
3281 harry...@webtree.ca
3231 dk...@mvps.org
3083 tmatz...@gmx.net
2233 mrxp2...@nospamyahoo.com
2140 123wvogel...@comcast.net
Bill P
Make that 18
Regards Bill
"Southern Gospel News Updates" <sgmf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d6d50bf-98dd-4f5e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Rick Merrill
I thought "top posters" were bad and "bottom posters" were good?!
>
Daave
> I thought "top posters" were bad and "bottom posters" were good?!
They're both superior to those who trim the entire text they are
replying to. ;-)
JD
Top posters are the Devil. You are forced to read the message and rely
upside down. The end is the beginning. People that trim useless text
when they reply are OK by me. What really bothers me is people that
don't use their smell checkers. There is nothing like bad smelling.
So they're.
So their.
So there.
8-)
--
JD..
Caesar Romano
Re: Top posters This month Nov 2009:
>Top posters are the Devil. You are forced to read the message and rely
>upside down.
Not if you put them in you kill file.
--
A: Yes.
Q: Does that happen with short messages too?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
Tom Willett
: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
Net nannies like you.
Ol�rin
should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go along with what
(in my experience) the overwhelming majority of people do, and top-post?
(He *killfiles* people who top-post? Sheesh!)
"Tom Willett" <t...@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote in message
news:OdJNHWcc...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Steve Hayes
<inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>I'm always curious about those who *insist* in newsgroups that everyone
>should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go along with what
>(in my experience) the overwhelming majority of people do, and top-post?
No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying to.
And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
"No problem at all. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and
read backwards."
"Only thing is ... I forgot where we started."
"How right you are."
"Yeah ... sure does make us stand out, doesn't it?"
"Maybe they're just not as clever as we are."
"I wonder why nobody else top-posts?"
"That's nice."
"I'm a top-poster too."
"Yes."
"Are you a top-poster?"
"Hi."
"Hi."
A conversation between two top-posters:
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Ol�rin
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sto9h59lh5d74gp3v...@4ax.com...
Okay, that's one opinion on the way to work (I'm just talking about e-mail,
here). Just one that I've rarely seen in practice, and never in a business
setting. If necessary, people DO manage to work their way up through
exchanges, and without their heads exploding.
Unknown
"Ol�rin" <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote in message
news:eVNxlUnc...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
John John - MVP
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:01:00 -0000, "Ol�rin"
> <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm always curious about those who *insist* in newsgroups that everyone
>> should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go along with what
>> (in my experience) the overwhelming majority of people do, and top-post?
>
> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying to.
>
> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
In my opinion in a one on one email exchange the conversation is more
fluent and natural when replied to the top, but to each his own. Are
you so forgetful that you don't remember what was said in the previous
email and that you must reread or scroll through the whole conversation
again before you read the reply from the other person? And who says
that private emails should follow top/bottom reply rules? What others
do in their private emails is nobody's business but their own and they
should do whatever pleases them! In my opinion replying to the bottom
in an email exchange is like having to repeat everything twice when you
engage in a verbal discussion.
By far the worse thing about top/bottom posting are the ones who
complain about it and who insist that others must do it their way. As
far as I am concerned it doesn't make any difference, if I'm interested
in a discussion thread I follow it and with top posting I don't need to
scroll or reread through what was previously posted, and if I have to
then with one click my newsreader can arrange the posts by thread so
it's easy enough to sort out. I use both posting methods, if I see that
the person who started the thread wants to post on top I do too, if I
see that he wants to post at the bottom I follow him down there and post
at the bottom. As far as I'm concerned it's nitpicking, especially in
these Microsoft groups where both posting methods have always been
accepted without too much fuss from any but the nitpicking crowd. And
of course we won't say anything about the ones who post at the bottom
without ever snipping anything, you know, the ones who make others
scroll through pages and and pages of text only to find silly one liners
at the very bottom...
John
John John - MVP
I bottom posted down here just to further confuse things and to annoy
others by making them scroll down here for nothing... I'm sure someone
will complain that I should have snipped...
John
Steve Hayes
<inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying
>> to.
>>
>> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>Okay, that's one opinion on the way to work (I'm just talking about e-mail,
>here). Just one that I've rarely seen in practice, and never in a business
>setting. If necessary, people DO manage to work their way up through
>exchanges, and without their heads exploding.
This, however, is not a forum for discussing netiquette, but rather for
discussing one particular operating system.
I suggest you Google "netiquette" for more information.
JD
Did you see the part about Kill Files?
--
JD..
John John - MVP
Yes, you're welcome to use them, it doesn't bother me one iota what
others read or don't read.
John
JD
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:00:12 -0000, "Ol�rin"
> <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Hayes"<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying
>>> to.
>>>
>>> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>
>> Okay, that's one opinion on the way to work (I'm just talking about e-mail,
>> here). Just one that I've rarely seen in practice, and never in a business
>> setting. If necessary, people DO manage to work their way up through
>> exchanges, and without their heads exploding.
>
> This, however, is not a forum for discussing netiquette, but rather for
> discussing one particular operating system.
>
> I suggest you Google "netiquette" for more information.
>
>
>
This is the argument that nobody can win.
When I reply, I bottom post unless the person I'm replying to is a top
poster, then I top post. The bottom post makes sense to me just like it
does to you. I don't read the paper from bottom to top. But who reads
the paper anymore?
Bottom posters and top posters will never agree on this. You got to love
a newsgroup!
--
JD..
JD
Ore you calling me an iota?
--
JD..
Peter Foldes
.
"Southern Gospel News Updates" <sgmf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d6d50bf-98dd-4f5e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Hi
Make that 18
Regards Bill
"Southern Gospel News Updates" <sgmf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d6d50bf-98dd-4f5e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I thought "top posters" were bad and "bottom posters" were good?!
Rick Merrill wrote:
> I thought "top posters" were bad and "bottom posters" were good?!
They're both superior to those who trim the entire text they are
replying to. ;-)
Daave wrote:
> Rick Merrill wrote:
>> I thought "top posters" were bad and "bottom posters" were good?!
>
> They're both superior to those who trim the entire text they are
> replying to. ;-)
>
>
Top posters are the Devil. You are forced to read the message and rely
upside down. The end is the beginning. People that trim useless text
when they reply are OK by me. What really bothers me is people that
don't use their smell checkers. There is nothing like bad smelling.
So they're.
So their.
So there.
8-)
--
JD..
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:55:22 -0600, JD <J...@example.invalid> wrote Re
Re: Top posters This month Nov 2009:
>Top posters are the Devil. You are forced to read the message and rely
>upside down.
Not if you put them in you kill file.
--
A: Yes.
Q: Does that happen with short messages too?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
Net nannies like you.
I'm always curious about those who *insist* in newsgroups that everyone
should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go along with what
(in my experience) the overwhelming majority of people do, and top-post?
(He *killfiles* people who top-post? Sheesh!)
"Tom Willett" <t...@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote in message
news:OdJNHWcc...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> : Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
>
> Net nannies like you.
>
>
--
JD..
--
JD
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:00:12 -0000, "Ol�rin"
<inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying
>> to.
>>
>> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>Okay, that's one opinion on the way to work (I'm just talking about e-mail,
>here). Just one that I've rarely seen in practice, and never in a business
>setting. If necessary, people DO manage to work their way up through
>exchanges, and without their heads exploding.
This, however, is not a forum for discussing netiquette, but rather for
discussing one particular operating system.
I suggest you Google "netiquette" for more information.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:00:12 -0000, "Ol�rin"
> <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Hayes"<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying
>>> to.
>>>
>>> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>
>> Okay, that's one opinion on the way to work (I'm just talking about e-mail,
>> here). Just one that I've rarely seen in practice, and never in a business
>> setting. If necessary, people DO manage to work their way up through
>> exchanges, and without their heads exploding.
>
> This, however, is not a forum for discussing netiquette, but rather for
> discussing one particular operating system.
>
> I suggest you Google "netiquette" for more information.
>
>
>
This is the argument that nobody can win.
When I reply, I bottom post unless the person I'm replying to is a top
poster, then I top post. The bottom post makes sense to me just like it
does to you. I don't read the paper from bottom to top. But who reads
the paper anymore?
Bottom posters and top posters will never agree on this. You got to love
a newsgroup!
--
JD..
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:01:00 -0000, "Ol�rin"
> <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm always curious about those who *insist* in newsgroups that everyone
>> should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go along with what
>> (in my experience) the overwhelming majority of people do, and top-post?
>
> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are replying to.
>
> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>In my opinion in a one on one email exchange the conversation is more
f>luent and natural when replied to the top, but to each his own. Are
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now is my turn to write to this post
Chapter 62 and I hope you all enjoyed the book
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged
Andy
this isn't perfection class is it?
--
AL'S COMPUTERS
"Ol�rin" <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote in message
news:eRGE$RmcKH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/browse_frm/thread/7bdb5c76d5be72bf/
Peter Foldes wrote:
> My post is at the bottom as some desired
<snipped - see above>
> And now is my turn to write to this post
>
> Chapter 62 and I hope you all enjoyed the book
Peter,
I believe you were chapter 20, not 62. ;-)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Shenan Stanley
Southern Gospel News Updates wrote:
> This month 17 hot-t...@hotmail.com
> 15 da...@example.com
> 14 j...@example.invalid
> 13 no....@no.where.no_spam.co.uk
> 13 newshel...@gmail.com
> 13 billu...@nospam.net
> 12 v...@nguard.lh
> 12 audetw...@nbnot.nb.ca
> 11 nob...@spamcop.net
> 11 inca...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com
>
> All time 13473 anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com
> 6866 r...@mvps.org
> 5421 sharonf...@etemvps.org
> 5160 u...@#notme.com
> 4088 kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain
> 3281 harry...@webtree.ca
> 3231 dk...@mvps.org
> 3083 tmatz...@gmx.net
> 2233 mrxp2...@nospamyahoo.com
> 2140 123wvogel...@comcast.net
Bill P wrote:
> Make that 18
Rick Merrill wrote:
> I thought "top posters" were bad and "bottom posters" were good?!
Daave wrote:
> They're both superior to those who trim the entire text they are
> replying to. ;-)
JD wrote:
> Top posters are the Devil. You are forced to read the message and
> rely upside down. The end is the beginning. People that trim
> useless text when they reply are OK by me. What really bothers me
> is people that don't use their smell checkers. There is nothing
> like bad smelling.
> So they're.
> So their.
> So there.
>
> 8-)
Caesar Romano wrote:
> Not if you put them in you kill file.
>
> A: Yes.
> Q: Does that happen with short messages too?
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally
> read text.
> Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
Tom Willett wrote:
> Net nannies like you.
Ol�rin wrote:
> I'm always curious about those who *insist* in newsgroups that
> everyone should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go
> along with what (in my experience) the overwhelming majority of
> people do, and top-post?
> (He *killfiles* people who top-post? Sheesh!)
Steve Hayes wrote:
> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are
> replying to.
> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>
> "No problem at all. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and
> read backwards."
> "Only thing is ... I forgot where we started."
> "How right you are."
> "Yeah ... sure does make us stand out, doesn't it?"
> "Maybe they're just not as clever as we are."
> "I wonder why nobody else top-posts?"
> "That's nice."
> "I'm a top-poster too."
> "Yes."
> "Are you a top-poster?"
> "Hi."
> "Hi."
>
> A conversation between two top-posters:
<there is a split in the conversation here, two diverging threads>
<continues below and further below a note will be made>
<titled "In Response to Steve Hayes">
Ol�rin wrote:
> Okay, that's one opinion on the way to work (I'm just talking about
> e-mail, here). Just one that I've rarely seen in practice, and
> never in a business setting. If necessary, people DO manage to work
> their way up through exchanges, and without their heads exploding.
<there is a split in the conversation here, two diverging threads>
<continues below and further below a note will be made>
<titled "In response to Ol�rin">
Unknown wrote:
> Simply ignore those that complain about top posting.
John John - MVP wrote:
> I bottom posted down here just to further confuse things and to
> annoy others by making them scroll down here for nothing... I'm
> sure someone will complain that I should have snipped...
JD wrote:
> Did you see the part about Kill Files?
John John - MVP wrote:
> Yes, you're welcome to use them, it doesn't bother me one iota what
> others read or don't read.
JD wrote:
> Ore you calling me an iota?
<In Response to Steve Hayes>
<this is where a new conversation thread starts>
John John - MVP wrote:
> In my opinion in a one on one email exchange the conversation is
> more fluent and natural when replied to the top, but to each his
</In Response to Steve Hayes>
</this is where a new conversation thread ends>
<In response to Ol�rin>
<this is where a new conversation thread starts>
Steve Hayes wrote:
> This, however, is not a forum for discussing netiquette, but rather
> for discussing one particular operating system.
>
> I suggest you Google "netiquette" for more information.
JD wrote:
> This is the argument that nobody can win.
>
> When I reply, I bottom post unless the person I'm replying to is a
> top poster, then I top post. The bottom post makes sense to me just
> like it does to you. I don't read the paper from bottom to top. But
> who reads the paper anymore?
>
> Bottom posters and top posters will never agree on this. You got to
> love a newsgroup!
</In response to Ol�rin>
</this is where a new conversation thread ends>
<In response to Southern Gospel News Updates>
<this is where a new conversation thread starts>
Peter Foldes wrote:
> My post is at the bottom as some desired
>
> And now is my turn to write to this post
>
> Chapter 62 and I hope you all enjoyed the book
</In response to Southern Gospel News Updates>
</this is where a new conversation thread ends>
Just quoting because it's fun...
The above is the "LONG" way of quoting this conversation in my opinion.
My next response - on the same level as this thread - is likely how I would
do it normally (not this way - ridiculously long IMHO.)
Ol�rin
Fully aware of "netiquette", thanks very much, but see this thread's title.
It wasn't an "XP Basics" issue in the first place, more of a diversion, so
your post is as much OT as mine - if either is. :-)
Do you police folks' posting formats at the same time as wearing your Off
Topic hat, or does that have its own little badge?
Ol�rin
it discussed, I was curious about top-posting in e-mails, as opposed to
newsgroups, and this seemed like an appropriate thread to bring it up in.
I wasn't seeking perfection (although striving for ease-of-reading is surely
no bad thing?), I don't know where you got that from.
"Andy" <N...@n.com> wrote in message
news:evJmlaxc...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Steve Hayes
You asked a question, and I tried to answer it. If you think that is policing
peoples' posting formats then you shouldn't have asked.
But I don't think this forum is the right place for a prolonged discussion on
the topic.
Peter Foldes
I know but I was trying to make a point
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OmG78mxc...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
RobertVA
cabbage (especially if I've been eating beans AND cabbage!).
Andy
as i see if if somone askes a qustion and somone gives them an answer its ok
by me .
:)
--
AL'S COMPUTERS
"Ol�rin" <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote in message
news:ut0ORNzc...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Twayne
Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> typed:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:01:00 -0000, "Ol�rin"
> <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm always curious about those who *insist* in newsgroups that
>> everyone should bottom-post - do they do the same in e-mails, or go
>> along with what (in my experience) the overwhelming majority of
>> people do, and top-post?
>
> No you should post your reply immediately below the text you are
> replying to.
>
> And yes, that goes for e-mails as well.
>
> "No problem at all. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and
> read backwards."
> "Only thing is ... I forgot where we started."
> "How right you are."
> "Yeah ... sure does make us stand out, doesn't it?"
> "Maybe they're just not as clever as we are."
> "I wonder why nobody else top-posts?"
> "That's nice."
> "I'm a top-poster too."
> "Yes."
> "Are you a top-poster?"
> "Hi."
> "Hi."
>
> A conversation between two top-posters:
And, it's fine. Each already knows what they said to the other. Seldom to
they have to look thru the historical part of the posts. It's faster, the
response is right there in front of them with no need to scroll down to get
to the response of a longer post, and they are quite happy with their
conversation.
If you're coming into the middle of the conversation, that's your
problem: The post wasn't addressed to you. And that makes this example your
problem, no one elses.
HTH,
Twayne`
Twayne
JD <J...@example.invalid> typed:
Kill Files are useless these days. You still see the killed poster in the
responses.
Twayne
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> Simply ignore those that complain about top posting.
Better yet, if you don't like it, don't read it. There's no one forcing you
to read posts that annoy you. I love top/bottom/inline posting threads; the
idiots and narcissists all just come crawling out of the woodwork with their
own attempts to force it to be one way or the other. On Usenet, wysiwyg I'm
afraid and expecting anyone to change to accomodate YOU is your own problem.
Don't like it? Don't read it next time.
HTH,
Twayne`
Peter
> > JD <J...@example.invalid> typed:
>> Did you see the part about Kill Files?
>
> Kill Files are useless these days. You still see the killed poster in the
> responses.
Should I announce your presence?
Woops!
JacobH
Bet you talk loudly on your mobile in public places too!
--
--
Geoff
ExploitEd
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I do wish I could
remember the darn question
JacobH
Maybe I should expand a bit before you napalm me!
That conversation between 2 posters was clearly private between them. If
they elect to make it public by posting it in a puplic forum, it is
encumbant upon them to adhere to the protocol of that forum.
In the same manner if you elect to talk on your mobile (cell) in a
public place e.g. a library, do so quietly and don't be surprised if
your 'private' conversation is public! Or better still DON'T.
Peter Foldes
Which forum are you talking about here Jacob ? There is no protocol in this one
(windowsxp.basic)
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"JacobH" <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote in message
news:OKvncJZe...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> JacobH wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> In news:sto9h59lh5d74gp3v...@4ax.com,
>>> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> typed:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:01:00 -0000, "Ol�rin"
>>>> <inc...@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com> wrote: