|
Thus said "PJ Hunt" :
I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply. It isn't. If you're too lazy to edit the quoted content to include just the relevant portions that you're replying to, then by all means don't bottom post. You could top-post, but better still, just don't post at all. There are plenty of other posters who value the reader's time enough to edit properly. |
"Bill Denton" wrote Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet. So why is it that you se the MAJORITY of usenet posts, using bottom posting mixed in style? Does that not matter at all to you? Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no scrolling to the bottom required. If, and only if, you only have one comment to make. Top posting does not work any other way. Much more convenient... The only thing convenient thing to do, is for you to **** people off, as you are doing by your illogical insistence that you are right, and the other 90% are wrong. Right now, I think it will be more logical for me to plonk yur a**. -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004 |
Perhaps the majority of the usenet posts you see are bottom posted, but the
majority I see are top posted. And there are a tremendous number of newsgroups out there; I seriously doubt that either of us have seen even a small fraction of them. When I visit a newsgroup where bottom-posting seems to be the convention, I bottom-post; it's not a religion with me. But it appears that most top-post on this newsgroup, so I top-post here. And my initial comment: "Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet" was intended to be humorous; I picked up: ""bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet" from someone else on this thread. I'm sorry you failed to see the humor on it. "Morgans" wrote in message ... "Bill Denton" wrote Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet. So why is it that you se the MAJORITY of usenet posts, using bottom posting mixed in style? Does that not matter at all to you? Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no scrolling to the bottom required. If, and only if, you only have one comment to make. Top posting does not work any other way. Much more convenient... The only thing convenient thing to do, is for you to **** people off, as you are doing by your illogical insistence that you are right, and the other 90% are wrong. Right now, I think it will be more logical for me to plonk yur a**. -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004 |
Robert, Thank you for the explanation.
I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it? Keep in mind I'm not talking about quoting a portion of the message to bring attention to a specific matter. That makes total sense. However, just as I'm sure that no one here starts reading a book or the newspaper from the very beginning every they set it down and then pick it up again, I don't see why they feel we should have to re-read the original message over and over again every someone post a response to the original poster. Just imagine what it would be like if this was how we sent, received and re-sent letters to people. Is there still more here that I'm missing or is this just a matter of some people have done it a certain way for so long and they're so set in their ways that nothing is going to convince them to change? Personally I don't really care if they change or not, if I don't want to scroll through all the previous message they have posted and re-posted, I just bypass it, which is what I find myself doing often. Thanks again for your reply. PJ |
That's why, if I am going to intersperse comments through a message, I will
always top-post something like: "My comments in text". "Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message ... Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Bill Denton" on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:23:29 -0600 spoke: Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet. WOW! That's so, uh, you know, STUPID! Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no scrolling to the bottom required. And MISS the fact that the person replied to OTHER segments below the first paragraph or two... -- The truth is out there, but it's not interesting enough for most people. |
Dave Holford wrote:
It's just like paper files. Yup. Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on top. Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach. Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener, take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It keeps them happy and occupied! People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse people. Jo Anne Dave, |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:08:35 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote: wrote Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the latest communication is at the top odf the stack. I am not. If you're keeping up with the conversation, Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark with the relavent material. you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting. By all means, for one liners, top post, but can you see my response as a top post? It would look like this: **************************************** I guess I forgot to mention I also believe in interleaved posting, where there are separate ressponses to different parts of a longer posting. I also bottom post if the prior post is so short that my comments are no more than a screen or so down. However, if there's only a short response, I will not roll down a hundred lines to satisfy the lunatics who insist that there is one and only one way to respond and that way, goddamn all other opinions, is bottom posting. In short, all three modes have their place. I am not. Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark with the relavent material. By all means, for one liners, top post, but can you see my response as a top post? Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting. If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one inconvenienced. On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:58:55 -0800, Joachim Feise wrote: ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47: I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I missing? A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading. -Joe --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/12/2004 |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote:
Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's proper context. What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting. It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm speaking of those with English as their native language here), including proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts, but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others to conform to my personal standards. It just isn't that big a deal. Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off from lack of acrimony. :-) |
Response at the bottom!
Jo Anne Slaven wrote: Dave Holford wrote: It's just like paper files. Yup. Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on top. Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach. Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener, take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It keeps them happy and occupied! People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse people. Exactly - the latest to arrive goes on top. Just like the "IN" box on a desk which contains responses to correspondence. It is a stack, not a queue. Actually I agree with Bill Denton. In those newsgroups where top posting is the standard I try to top post and in those where bottom posting is the standard I try to bottom post. Sometimes when I'm more interested in the content than the policy I get it wrong. It's like arguing religion - pointless, the believers believe they are right and nothing will convert them. It makes for interminable threads whose content bears no relationship to the header whatsoever - how that helps to not confuse people escapes me. One would expect that if helping peers find information quickly was even a minor consideration the first action would be to make the header relevant. But, it does provide some light entertainment on a slow day. Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com