Re: Please carefullt read my question and answer in kind

Doug wrote:

Was that suppose to be humor?

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message

Is this usb2 a new kind of 35mm film? What is the guide number of the new

fangled

compact flash that you got. Also who makes it and what kind of batteries

does it

use?

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Eyron wrote:
: Is there a reason to go to USB2 with todays Compac flash

Apparently lost on you. He should have been less subtle about the "rec.photo.equipment.35mm" blurb.

OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to throw stones.

—
Jason O’Rourke www.jor.com

Big woo.

Jason O’Rourke wrote self-righteously to Doug:

OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to throw stones.

—
John Miller
Usenet admin since 1987

The superfluous is very necessary.
— Voltaire

Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here are we? Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. and just wastes everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are even more tollerable!

"John Miller" wrote in message

Big woo.

Hehe.

Jason O’Rourke wrote self-righteously to Doug:

OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to throw stones.

What about middle-posting? No wait don’t answer that.

—
John Miller
Usenet admin since 1987

….

The superfluous is very necessary.
— Voltaire

Sigh…

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator wrote:
: Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here are we? : Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. and just wastes : everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are even more tollerable!

It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even realize how much of a pain bottom posting is.

: "John Miller" wrote in message :> Big woo.

: Hehe.

:> Jason O’Rourke wrote self-righteously to Doug:
:> > OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to throw :> > stones.

: What about middle-posting? No wait don’t answer that.

:> —
:> John Miller
:> Usenet admin since 1987

: …

:> The superfluous is very necessary.
:> — Voltaire

: Sigh…

—

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
——————-

Frank Pittel wrote:

It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even realize how much of a pain bottom posting is.

Actually, the bigger pain than either is failure to trim quotes well.

—
John "top, bottom, don’t care, really" Miller

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of sense to know how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

Frank Pittel wrote in
news::

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator wrote:
: Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here : are we? Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. : and just wastes everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are even : more tollerable!

It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even realize how much of a pain bottom posting is.

People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a page and works their way up.

: "John Miller" wrote in message
: news:bdat12$r99$
:> Big woo.

: Hehe.

:> Jason O’Rourke wrote self-righteously to Doug:
:> > OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to :> > throw stones.

: What about middle-posting? No wait don’t answer that.

:> —
:> John Miller
:> Usenet admin since 1987

: …

:> The superfluous is very necessary.
:> — Voltaire

: Sigh…

"Jon Pike" wrote in message

Frank Pittel wrote in
news::

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator wrote:
: Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here : are we? Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. : and just wastes everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are even : more tollerable!

It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even realize how much of a pain bottom posting is.

People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a page and works their way up.

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

"Tesselator" writes:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

Ah, someone to whom the term ‘netiquette’ will come as a novelty.

B>

Tesselator wrote:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

This is entirely wrong.

I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming before the answer. So do most people.

Therefore, any reply ought to come after what is being replied to.

—
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message

"Tesselator" writes:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

Ah, someone to whom the term ‘netiquette’ will come as a novelty.

Netiquette would have much much more to do with slighting or dissing someone in a one-liner than it would have to do with wheather you placed you reply text at the top, bottom, or middle of the (included for your _convienience_) quoted text of the previous message. But it’s ok. We forgive you.

"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message

Tesselator wrote:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and

the

successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

This is entirely wrong.

I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming before the answer. So do most people.

Therefore, any reply ought to come after what is being replied to.
—
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/

this is an interesting subject. I just got bitched out about it on another newsgroup. With all that is wrong in the world I can’t believe people get so wrapped up about whether you post on top or below. I normally top post and try to post to the person I am responding to. Now I feel like I have been hammered into posting at the bottom

And what does this have to do with photography anyway?

I’ll try to remember that. <g>

pioe[rmv] wrote:

Tesselator wrote:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the
successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

This is entirely wrong.

I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming before the answer. So do most people.

Therefore, any reply ought to come after what is being replied to.

Tesselator wrote:

People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a page and works their way up.

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

Others have show why top posting is silly. Reading a longer post is equilivent to vertical tennis.

More importantly, you make a presumption that all the articles will arrive in sequence and be properly threaded. That isn’t always the case in a system of thousands of NNTP servers.

What amazes me about this offshoot I started is that the primary element of my posting was to help some clueless humorless fellow understand why someone in the 35mm realm was complaining about mass crosspostings. And so I have changed followups to suit. For some reason you and a couple others wannabe rebel top posters felt a need to beat your chest about why your inane practice makes sense. —
Jason O’Rourke www.jor.com

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Jon Pike wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in
: news::

:> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator wrote:
:>: Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here :>: are we? Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. :>: and just wastes everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are even :>: more tollerable!
:>
:>
:> It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered :> method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even realize how :> much of a pain bottom posting is.

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a : page and works their way up.

The problem with bottom posting is that during a thread when a post gets replied and the the reply gets replied to, etc, etc you then have to go to the bottom to read the reply. With top posting the new and interesting information is at the top.

:>: "John Miller" wrote in message
:>: news:bdat12$r99$
:>:> Big woo.
:>
:>
:>: Hehe.
:>
:>:> Jason O’Rourke wrote self-righteously to Doug: :>:> > OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to :>:> > throw stones.
:>
:>: What about middle-posting? No wait don’t answer that. :>
:>
:>:> —
:>:> John Miller
:>:> Usenet admin since 1987
:>
:>: …
:>
:>
:>:> The superfluous is very necessary.
:>:> — Voltaire
:>
:>
:>: Sigh…
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>

—

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
——————-

Frank Pittel wrote:

The problem with bottom posting is that during a thread when a post gets replied and the the reply gets replied to, etc, etc you then have to go to the bottom to read the reply. With top posting the new and interesting information is at the top.

The real problem is neither top posting nor bottom posting; it is failure to trim the quoted parts of messages.

—
John Miller

And now for something completely the same.

"Tesselator" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message

"Tesselator" writes:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

Ah, someone to whom the term ‘netiquette’ will come as a novelty.

Netiquette would have much much more to do with slighting or dissing someone in a one-liner than it would have to do with wheather you placed you reply text at the top, bottom, or middle of the (included for your _convienience_) quoted text of the previous message. But it’s ok. We forgive you.

Demonstrating /again/ that you are not in fact aware of publish guidelines to posting. There /are/ rules, you’ve just never bothered to read them.

B>

rufref wrote:

I normally top post
and try to post to the person I am responding to.

So what then is your rationale for letting your reply come BEFORE that which you are replying to?

Per Inge Oestmoen

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message

"Tesselator" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message

"Tesselator" writes:

Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I’m with John Miller… I don’t really care where it’s posted just as long noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL

Ah, someone to whom the term ‘netiquette’ will come as a novelty.

Netiquette would have much much more to do with slighting or dissing someone in a one-liner than it would have to do with wheather you placed you reply text at the top, bottom, or middle of the (included for your _convienience_) quoted text of the previous message. But it’s ok. We forgive you.

Demonstrating /again/ that you are not in fact aware of publish guidelines to posting. There /are/ rules, you’ve just never bothered to read them.

I couldn’t disagree more! So you’re saying that if I "publish" guidelines specifying some sort of rediculousness like top or bottom posting you’re willing to accept that as /word/. What a dull and dreary life it is to be such a conformist. To live your life and control your behavior based on the published guidlines produced by some dweeb in a dark corner of some office who most likely know less about life than you yourself. No thank you. I’m quite happy thinking for myself and questioning athority.

BTW, I have indeed read such things. They are to be taken with a grain of salt. Most of them even say so! Either in the footnotes or right in the text body as they lay out for you the "proposed" /general/ guidelines.

I feel for ya bro.

For some reason you and a couple others wannabe rebel top posters felt a need to beat your chest about why your inane practice makes sense. —
Jason O’Rourke www.jor.com

LOL, indeed. If was fun while it lasted tho…

O 🙂

Frank Pittel wrote in
news::

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Jon Pike wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in
: news::

:> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator wrote:
:>: Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here :>: are we? Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. :>: and just wastes everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are :>: even more tollerable!
:>
:>
:> It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their :> prefered method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even :> realize how much of a pain bottom posting is.

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people : normally read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at : the bottom of a page and works their way up.

The problem with bottom posting is that during a thread when a post gets replied and the the reply gets replied to, etc, etc you then have to go to the bottom to read the reply. With top posting the new and interesting information is at the top.

that’s what <snip>’ping is for.

"Tesselator" writes:

I couldn’t disagree more! So you’re saying that if I "publish" guidelines specifying some sort of rediculousness like top or bottom posting you’re willing to accept that as /word/. What a dull and dreary life it is to be such a conformist. To live your life and control your behavior based on the published guidlines produced by some dweeb in a dark corner of some office who most likely know less about life than you yourself. No thank you. I’m quite happy thinking for myself and questioning athority.

RFCs are the nearest things you’ll find to peer-reviewed publications on the general ‘net. If you "publish" an RFC, then you have a very good idea of what’s going on.

BTW, I have indeed read such things. They are to be taken with a grain of salt. Most of them even say so! Either in the footnotes or right in the text body as they lay out for you the "proposed" /general/ guidelines.

I’m sure that you’d take any excuse to continue being lazy.

B>

Bruce Murphy wrote:

RFCs are the nearest things you’ll find to peer-reviewed publications on the general ‘net. If you "publish" an RFC, then you have a very good idea of what’s going on.

Which RFC mandates bottom posting?

—
John Miller

We are what we pretend to be.
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

"John Miller" wrote in message

Bruce Murphy wrote:

RFCs are the nearest things you’ll find to peer-reviewed publications on the general ‘net. If you "publish" an RFC, then you have a very good idea of what’s going on.

Which RFC mandates bottom posting?

None. Not a one.

"Tesselator" writes:

"John Miller" wrote in message

Bruce Murphy wrote:

RFCs are the nearest things you’ll find to peer-reviewed publications on the general ‘net. If you "publish" an RFC, then you have a very good idea of what’s going on.

Which RFC mandates bottom posting?

None. Not a one.

Wrongo, perhaps you don’t bother to read RFCs all that often? Figures.

B>

Bruce Murphy wrote:

"Tesselator" writes:

"John Miller" wrote to Bruce:

Which RFC mandates bottom posting?

None. Not a one.

Wrongo, perhaps you don’t bother to read RFCs all that often? Figures.

<second attempt>
So which RFC IS it that mandates bottom posting, Bruce?

—
John Miller

"In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble." — Alan Perlis

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Wrongo, perhaps you don’t bother to read RFCs all that often? Figures.

They’re not exactly riveting reading material.

But I don’t need an RFC to know it makes more sense. It’s more about politeness than comformity.

—
Jason O’Rourke www.jor.com

I am not here to argue with you.

"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message

rufref wrote:

I normally top post
and try to post to the person I am responding to.

So what then is your rationale for letting your reply come BEFORE that which you are replying to?

Per Inge Oestmoen

"Tesselator" writes:

Actually I think it’s more rude to incinuate that someone is not polite by top posting than it is to top post. But that’s comming from a guy who moved out of the USA cuz he thought most Americans were too rude to deal with and moved to Japan where the people are known for politeness.

Who are you talking about now?

So Bruce, Let’s see ya call up the RFC number that that is located in. I happen to know that you can not do it. Maybe if you write one up real quick… LOL.

RFC1855, as many others have pointed out. Doubtless you won’t be able to find it, either, so:

"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."

So as far as I read it, that’s includign summary or quoted sections above your reply.

"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."

And this is where the ‘top-posting is okay becasue you just read down the messages in a thread’ argument is blown out of the water.

"Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!"

tada. And this is where people who top-post because tehy’re too lazy to trim get yelled at as well. Beautiful.

Yes, this is an RFC, yes, this is an ifnormation RFC, but before you leap to say ‘well it doesn’t matter than’, you should go through the RFC index and see what other tings are considered informational.

B>

Hey, that was kinda rude. (again) So I’ll make my final reply and be done.

RFC1855, as many others have pointed out. Doubtless you won’t be able to find it, either, so:

Like I said, you will NOT be able to unless you write your own and somehow get it accepted. There is nothing… not one thing, that mandates top-posting or otherwise suggests that included quoted text is somehow better or worse at the top, as opposed to the bottom or middle of a reply one sends. By the way did you happen to notice the very first clause?

Let me quote it for you here:

Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

So not only is it not a mandate but according to the article you specified it’s not even a /standard/ guideline.

So all you’ve prooven to me (us?) so far is your inability to understand written english. Hmmm, this arguement isn’t going too well for you I think.

But it’s stopped being fun for me now and I’m sure others think us both rediculous for even discussing it on channels conserned with photography and not internet analisms. I know at least that’s what I think when I see the issue discussed in a public forum devoted to a different topic.

Sorry to _all_ of you who were boerd to tears with all my ramblings!

Tesselator wrote:

Actually I think it’s more rude to incinuate that someone is not polite by top posting than it is to top post. But that’s comming from a guy who moved out of the USA cuz he thought most Americans were too rude to deal with and moved to Japan where the people are known for politeness.

Clearly you’re male. You’re talking about a society where the men have absolutely no reluctance to shove a woman to the deck in order to get the last seat on the subway. A country that has had the need to implement single sex cars because of the pervasive sexual assualt. One that is incredibly racist.

I guess I could imagine a few reasons to move out there indefinitely, but the polite society would not be one of them.

—
Jason O’Rourke www.jor.com

"Tesselator" writes:

Hey, that was kinda rude. (again) So I’ll make my final reply and be done.

RFC1855, as many others have pointed out. Doubtless you won’t be able to find it, either, so:

Like I said, you will NOT be able to unless you write your own and somehow get it accepted. There is nothing… not one thing, that mandates top-posting or otherwise suggests that included quoted text is somehow better or worse at the top, as opposed to the bottom or middle of a reply one sends. By the way did you happen to notice the very first clause?

I guess you missed my post on the subject that outline precisely why you can’t claim that top-posting practice follows these guidelines.

Let me quote it for you here:

Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Okay, so you’re new to this RFC thing. An internet ‘standard’ is hardly going to be defined for message formatting. It is enough to illustarte what is correct and what is not.

However, since you’re so keep to jump up and down on that information-not-standard part in the RFC, perhaps you should look through the RFC index sometime and see just how many ‘INFORMATIONAL’ tags are in there, and the sorts of things that are
covered. Everything from vendor protocols to some bits of MIME.

So not only is it not a mandate but according to the article you specified it’s not even a /standard/ guideline.

Again, you clearly misunderstand how ‘standard’ is applied here. Your use of it in that sentence has a differnet meaning to its use in the RFC definitions.

So all you’ve prooven to me (us?) so far is your inability to understand written english. Hmmm, this arguement isn’t going too well for you I think.

It is funny you should bring that up. Clearly you’re confused about the word ‘stadnard’ as well as many other things.

B>

"Jason O’Rourke" wrote in message

Tesselator wrote:

Actually I think it’s more rude to incinuate that someone is not polite by top posting than it is to top post. But that’s comming from a guy who moved out of the USA cuz he thought most Americans were too rude to deal with and moved to Japan where the people are known for politeness.

Clearly you’re male.

Ya. But I have heard all kinds of women say the same thing. _Every_ international person that I’ve encountered in the last 15years here says the same thing. Much more often the complaint is that Japanese people and the society are /too/ polite. But I can understand your nationalism in light of recent events.

You’re talking about a society where the men have
absolutely no reluctance to shove a woman to the deck in order to get the last seat on the subway.

Never happens. Man, really… never…

A country that has had the need to
implement single sex cars because of the pervasive sexual assualt.

Interesting… There may be such a thing but I travel alot here for my job durring certian seasons, watch the news almost daily, and read the newspaper as often as I can, and have never seen nor heard of such things.

Man, where are you getting this stuff? I mean sure there are exceptions. Like crazy people who need help. Here they might push a woman for a seat. In the usa the same crazy person rapes, stabs, and kills the woman, blows up a building or lights a forest fire… But if you want to bring up the subject of violent nuts it’s /much/ more of a problem in the USA. On an incidental level of thousands to one and magnitudinally immeasurable. If someone were to push a woman to the floor for a seat on a subway it would be such an event that it would be very likely to make the evening news.

– Ah ha, perhapps this is what you saw or heard?

One that is incredibly racist.

Yes every country is racist to some degree. But trying to compare the little bit of shunning that occurs here with the rampid outbreaks of rioting, daily murders, over-sensitivity, and etc. that exists in the USA… Wow… You just can’t… No, really.. there’s no comparisson.

Please watch Micheal Moore’s "Bowling For Collumbine" for an idea of the statistical differences between the USA and other countries with regards to violence.

I guess you are in Berkeley so that’s a pretty nice place as places go but you should look outside of your local community. You may be shocked at what you see.

Or did you already know everything I just said and were just trying to burn me for posting dumb stuff about the textual structure of NNTP replies?

If so I missed it and should have just made a joke or something. If not however you really are unaware of what daily life in Japan is like and how it differs from that of the USA.

That’s cool though… What I first came here I half expected to see Samurai dudes roamming the streets with swords in formal kimono.

O 🙂

I guess I could imagine a few reasons to move out there indefinitely, but the polite society would not be one of them.

—
Jason O’Rourke www.jor.com

I’ll not argue this further as the entire subject of American (USA) violence is repulsive to me. If you have some specific and sincere questions about the issue feel free to email me privatly.

No. I’m done. Really.

Thanky ou for your interest though.

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Jon Pike wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in
: news::

:> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator wrote:
:>: Really… we’re not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here :>: are we? Gawd I hope not! It’s extremely anal! It’s not correct. :>: and just wastes everyone’s time. Gripes about misspellings are even :>: more tollerable!
:>
:>
:> It’s the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered :> method of bottom posting that are anal. They don’t even realize how :> much of a pain bottom posting is.

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a : page and works their way up.

Top posting is for avid readers who follow threads

Bottom posting is for lurkers who want to follow conversations

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

I don’t like anybody posting in my bottom.
…………and I don’t want anyone planting any seeds up there either.

smog

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:54:08 GMT, "Got Whiz? Cheese that is…" wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

So are you.

Dave

But I always preferred this method myself. No "tops" or no "bottoms" thusly offending no-one.

Leaving no clue what one is talking about most of the time. But hey, this is usenet.

It’s a never gonna end debate. Read ’em or not. Freedom of choice. yadda yadda yadda

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

Actually, some cultures DO write from the bottom up, but it is not the norm in English. Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an answer before the question. Perhaps die-hard Jeopardy fans will feel at home, but most people would prefer the ‘normal’ order, which is top down.

—
Ron Hunter

DD wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:54:08 GMT, "Got Whiz? Cheese that is…" wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

So are you.

Dave

An ideal newsreader would present the posts in chronological order by whichever posting style the user preferred, and post replies at the bottom. That way the computer does the work, and everyone is happy.

—
Ron Hunter

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

Actually, some cultures DO write from the bottom up, but it is not the norm in English. Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an answer before the question. Perhaps die-hard Jeopardy fans will feel at home, but most people would prefer the ‘normal’ order, which is top down.

If you are carrying on a conversation with just one person, top posting works pretty well, since that one person has little trouble remembering you and what you said last. The place where top posting doesn’t work very well is on forums like these, where over a hundred people will be reading your post, and some of these people have just arrived after a week at the top of a mountain somewhere. For these, top posting saves no time, and is just a pain in the ass……..

Not if one reads the subject first.

" Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an
answer before the question."
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

Actually, some cultures DO write from the bottom up, but it is not the norm in English. Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an answer before the question. Perhaps die-hard Jeopardy fans will feel at home, but most people would prefer the ‘normal’ order, which is top down.

—
Ron Hunter

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:54:08 GMT, "Got Whiz? Cheese that is…" wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

top-posters are lazy posters

primo they are too lazy to scroll down in a message
secundo they are mostly too lazy to edit the message(s) leaving endless, irrelevant quotes in the thread

ergo
I consider their additions futile
ergo as I’m a lazy reader I do not want to scoll down to endlessly repeated message quotes so their message(s) go straight to the trash (exception made for just this one)

If they want to piss away their time on top of a mountain, they can damned well piss away some more time catching up.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:12:14 -0700, "William Graham" wrote:

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

But, then this isn’t a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.

">>

: People prefer to bottom-post because that’s how normal people normally : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
: page and works their way up.

Actually, some cultures DO write from the bottom up, but it is not the norm in English. Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an answer before the question. Perhaps die-hard Jeopardy fans will feel at home, but most people would prefer the ‘normal’ order, which is top down.

If you are carrying on a conversation with just one person, top posting works pretty well, since that one person has little trouble remembering you and what you said last. The place where top posting doesn’t work very well is on forums like these, where over a hundred people will be reading your post, and some of these people have just arrived after a week at the top of a mountain somewhere. For these, top posting saves no time, and is just a pain in the ass……..