On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:02 +0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then everyone,
including you, would follow the convention of top-posting.

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

It's just a guide - the rest of it is worth reading too....

- Mike

In article , Bill Turner
writes:

First of all, this anecdote has the ring of untruth.

Roughly about 12 bells all ringing out some jolly tune. :-)

First of all, Air Regulations are in place, have been in place
for decades, to handle aircraft without working radio
equipment. Those are lights in hand-held spotlights.

While it is an Air Regulation that aircraft operating into, over, and
out of air traffic controlled airports must have radios for normal
traffic guidance, there are also safety regulations which anticipate
that someone at some time might have equipment problems.
Flight instructors would surely know that.

In a real-life happening about two decades ago in Los Angeles,
a helicopter instructor's microphone somehow got stuck on
transmit on the normal tower frequency. Having had an aircraft
receiver on in my workshop one Saturday (house is about a mile
and a half from Bob Hope Airport - formerly the Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport in the east end of San Fernando Valley), I heard
the happening. All listeners could hear the the instructor advise
his student about helicopter hover flying. Somehow the mike
was connected to both the helo intercom and the aircraft radio.

Being AM, the stuck helo transmissions would block all weaker
signals on the BUR tower frequency. BUR tower could overpower
the helo's radio because it was higher power and had elevated
antennas of good size. However, all other traffic was blocked out
for the BUR tower and they had to get a temporary recording
going on other frequencies (approach, departure, radar vectoring)
plus advising VNY (Van Nuys, center of Valley) and LAX of the
problem. The radio blockage continued for about a half hour and
disrupted normal afternoon flying at BUR. How the helo was
informed isn't known but one circulating story has it that an FAA
van drove out to the end of the airport where the hovering took
place and signalled to the helo somehow, perhaps by lights.
The helicopter instructor apologized (apparently when signalled)
over the radio and the frustrated tower operators (at least two
voices) told him, also over the radio, to "report to the tower." :-)

But even if true, this is a perfect example of the wrong way to solve a
problem. Instead of relying on Morse for a backup, how about having a
second radio, perhaps an HT, in the plane?

That's quite common in this area for general aviation aircraft who
don't already have two comm radios installed. The Greater Los
Angeles section has an extraordinary amount of aircraft traffic.
IFR applies to some localized areas. Generally, the FAA can
transmit voice over the VOR and/or Localizer in the adjacent
radionavigation band (108 - 118 MHz, also AM). The major HT
manufacturers all produce a civil aviation model for private aircraft
use. Lacking that, the towers have fairly biright aimable spotlights
which they can use to signal an aircraft; seldom used, they are
there for emergencies. Lacking recognition by a "silent" aircraft,
the FAA is prepared to handle it as best as other traffic allows.
The FAA air controller's school does not have morse code
cognition in its curriculum.



Posted on 17 Jan 05

In article ,
mike wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:02 +0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then everyone,
including you, would follow the convention of top-posting.

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

It's just a guide - the rest of it is worth reading too....

That's correct.

The convention on USENET, and on ARPANET mailing lists such as
"info-mac" (the first I ever read), has long been one of "quote the
material you are responding to, and put your response after it".
That's been the case since at least 1980, and I believe that it dates
back even further than that - probably to the first Unix email systems
and likely back to the days of email on PDP-11s and
TOPS-10/TOPS-20/TENEX systems. In other words, it's a deeply rooted
Internet tradition.

I believe this tradition is probably derived from older written-English
traditions, such as the "letters to the editor" tradition in which a
writer's letter would be printed in whole or part, and an editor's
responses to the points made therein being printed after, or
interspersed with the letter. I've never seen an editor's rejoinders
printed *before* the letter writer's text.

Footnotes and other clarifying comments inserted by a book's editor
are likewise printed beneath the text to which they refer.

On the Internet, the use of "top posting" is a much more recent
phenomenon. It seems to date to the first arrival of Internet-capable
email software authored by Microsoft, a company whom many seem to feel
takes delight in ignoring prevailing standards.

One might say that the Internet's "gentleman's tradition" (no
disrespect to the ladies being intended by the use of that phrase) is
one of interspersed or "bottom" posting, and that those who understand
the Internet technical culture and who value "gentlemanly" behavior
would choose to respect that tradition.

In an absolute sense, one can argue that neither top nor bottom
posting is inherently superior. Howeve, bottom/interspersed posting
"got here first" and has been part of Internet tradition for longer
than there has been an Internet (big "I").

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

The comma in "top of the message, or include just" shows that
two suggestions are being made, one suggestion is
bottom-posting and the other suggestion is not.

As you say, "It's just a guide" - not rules, but just a guide.

I see that you conveniently forgot to quote the author's
comments that the quoted bit below was just his own
personal preference and not a rule.

"mike" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:02 +0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
Conventions are not rules - if they were to be so, then everyone,
including you, would follow the convention of top-posting.
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
It's just a guide - the rest of it is worth reading too....

The style in which one posts has nothing to do
with gentlemanliness.

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
One might say that the Internet's "gentleman's tradition" (no
disrespect to the ladies being intended by the use of that phrase) is
one of interspersed or "bottom" posting, and that those who understand
the Internet technical culture and who value "gentlemanly" behavior
would choose to respect that tradition.

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
The style in which one posts has nothing to do
with gentlemanliness.

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
One might say that the Internet's "gentleman's tradition" (no
disrespect to the ladies being intended by the use of that
phrase) is
one of interspersed or "bottom" posting, and that those who
understand
the Internet technical culture and who value "gentlemanly"
behavior
would choose to respect that tradition.



Obviously the man is unaware of what a gentleman is!

Plonk!

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:02:54 -0800, Bill Turner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:56:54 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote:
In an absolute sense, one can argue that neither top nor bottom posting
is inherently superior. Howeve, bottom/interspersed posting "got here
first" and has been part of Internet tradition for longer than there has
been an Internet (big "I").
It's good to re-evaluate so-called traditions from time to time.

In the business world, top posting is nearly universal due to use of
Microsoft Office, which defaults that way. Given that many more people
use Office than use Usenet (I think), shouldn't the majority rule? If
not, why not?

The following reasons are NOT valid, IMO:

1. Tradition.

2. English is read from top to bottom. I've ALREADY read the quoted
part, I don't need to do it again, usually. It is nice to have it
available to refer to if needed, but the NEW part is what I'm really
interested in.

I am bottom posting here (tradition) but I'm thinking of changing.
Convince me otherwise if you can. Mind is open.

Imagine someone coming into the middle of the conversation (posting
exchange) and not having already read the quoted part. With bottom posting
they (in particular me) can get up to speed on the thread easier.

Server load, net traffic, etc, can cause news msgs and email to arrive out
of sync with other replies. With top posting you can never be sure of the
order of things you are reading without scrolling up and down a lot. Mix
this with msgs that are part top and part bottom posted and you have a
maze to try to figure out. (I/you/we could argue that however a msg comes
to you - top or bottom posted - you and others who may reply to it should
follow that style for that msg and not mix top/bottom posting)

I'm babbling and probably not making sense. Let me try this - This is how
I see top posting -

Answer

Question
Answer
Comment
Reply
Question
Answer
Comment
Reply
Question
Answer
Comment
Reply
Question

Hope I've not conviently left out some things. ;-)
Now that I've butted in and caused this thread to drag on longer than
it should - Hey! - How about some homebrew radio content!? (technically
this should be the start of a new thread with a new subject, maybe I'll do
that when I test my antenna some more) I just built a discone style
antenna with a lot of radials from 36 inch lengths of wire welding rod. I
put it on top of a pole that used to have a bird house on it in my
backyard. My neighbors grandfather says it looks like a "sputnic" landed
and abducted the bird house.

- Mike

You were the one to introduce the concept of
bad manners into this discussion, but it is you
who persists with rudeness.

Therefore you illustrate why top-posting is
the preferred style amongst civilised people,
because bottom-posters are characterised
by bad manners.

"Clarence_A" wrote in message
...
"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
The style in which one posts has nothing to do
with gentlemanliness.

Obviously the man is unaware of what a gentleman is!

Plonk!

You do not need to be convinced one way or the
other. Whether to post at the top or at the bottom
is a matter of free style and free choice.

It is not an issue of gentlemanliness nor of manners.

Rudeness and personal remarks are perhaps of those issues.

Not replying at all is perhaps of those issues.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
news
I am bottom posting here (tradition) but I'm thinking of changing.
Convince me otherwise if you can. Mind is open.

If someone comes upon a posting in the middle of the
conversation, and wished to follow the conversation,
then he can go to his news server and review the history.

If the posting that he has come across whets his appetite,
then it is most likely to be the NEW contribution that is
responsible for the whetting, and the best place for
this new material is at the top.

If, however, it is the OLD material that whets his appetite,
then, by other practices that are vaunted as conventions, the
old material will have been much reduced by snipping, and the
someone will be motivated to go back to that older posting, and
so it will be irrelevant to him whether that old material is quoted
at the top or the bottom of the new posting.

"mike" wrote in message
news
Imagine someone coming into the middle of the conversation (posting
exchange) and not having already read the quoted part. With bottom posting
they (in particular me) can get up to speed on the thread easier.