Derek Broughton wrote:

rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't even
appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top posting
either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

"be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
essence of bottom posting.

Derek Broughton wrote:

rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't even
appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top posting
either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

"be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
essence of bottom posting.

wrote:

Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a newsgroup
on the topic of news groups?

Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
this forum like you that top post.

wrote:

Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a newsgroup
on the topic of news groups?

Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
this forum like you that top post.

Crashj wrote:

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:38:59 GMT, edu
(Marizel) wrote something like:


Just make sure you
don't have an automatic sig added to the bottom of the whole post.

A good newsreader will trim a properly formatted sig line. Few here
know how to do that, apparently.

Mine does. Of course, it doesn't top-post without difficulty, either...
--
derek

Crashj wrote:

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:38:59 GMT, edu
(Marizel) wrote something like:


Just make sure you
don't have an automatic sig added to the bottom of the whole post.

A good newsreader will trim a properly formatted sig line. Few here
know how to do that, apparently.

Mine does. Of course, it doesn't top-post without difficulty, either...
--
derek

None of you get it do you??

TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
alt.geek. I just looked to see if it really exists and it does. You will
frighten people away with you incessant moaning. Get a life. Nobody
interested in various answers to fishy questions will care where people
reply, and I think photos help and should be included in the post where it
helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
will help.

Go away and grow up.

Fireball





"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message
news
Derek Broughton wrote:

rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
even
appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top
posting
either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

"be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
essence of bottom posting.

"Crashj" wrote in message
...
On or about Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:53 GMT, "Nedra"
wrote something like:

Yeaaaaa for Fireball!!! There I voted.

Nedra


I can certainly understand your reaction and I am fine with you all
top posting short conversations, but why won't you trim your posts?
--
Crashj

I don't know why, but Fireball's message never showed up on OE, which I use.
I only saw Nedra's quote. Still, I have to ask, if Fireball has to ask
whether Nedra or several others in the discussion even has a pond, he hasn't
shown any interest in actually reading the group. (There - I bottom posted.
But I still like the conversational, email-toned flow of top-posting. It
eliminates the need to snip, since many people are too stubborn about it. I
don't see that top posting is any worse.

"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message
news
wrote:

Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a
newsgroup
on the topic of news groups?

Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
this forum like you that top post.

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity. Top posting, on the other
hand, is scorned beyond all reason, in my book. I don't see the difference.
Regular etiquette has some outdated rules that have gone by the wayside as
no longer relevant or appreciated. Why can't some of the original
netiquette rules go the same way? Are there some newsreaders out there that
really make top-posting hard to follow?
As for not mentioning spelling mistakes, once someone here referred to a
goldfish "bowel". A couple of well worded, gentle jokes were made and most
people had a good laugh, including the OP. Even after the OP chimed in with
his or her contribution to the humor of it, there were people who posted
with severe indignation at someone's spelling being commented upon. Even
when the original poster responded to that, to say they thought it was
funny, there were those who weren't satisfied.
It all seems the same to me.

"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message
news
wrote:

Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a
newsgroup
on the topic of news groups?

Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
this forum like you that top post.

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity. Top posting, on the other
hand, is scorned beyond all reason, in my book. I don't see the difference.
Regular etiquette has some outdated rules that have gone by the wayside as
no longer relevant or appreciated. Why can't some of the original
netiquette rules go the same way? Are there some newsreaders out there that
really make top-posting hard to follow?
As for not mentioning spelling mistakes, once someone here referred to a
goldfish "bowel". A couple of well worded, gentle jokes were made and most
people had a good laugh, including the OP. Even after the OP chimed in with
his or her contribution to the humor of it, there were people who posted
with severe indignation at someone's spelling being commented upon. Even
when the original poster responded to that, to say they thought it was
funny, there were those who weren't satisfied.
It all seems the same to me.

Ann in Houston wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity.

It's not worse. But flaming spelling is unfair when you don't know if the
other party really is an ignorant unschooled lout. Anybody should be able
to figure out how to post in a sequentially meaningful manner.

Are there some newsreaders out there
that really make top-posting hard to follow?

All of them. It's just fine to top-post _once_, but when everybody is
posting on top of a sequence of top-posters, it's time for the bit bucket.

[I swore I'd had enough of this thread...]
--
derek

Ann in Houston wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity.

It's not worse. But flaming spelling is unfair when you don't know if the
other party really is an ignorant unschooled lout. Anybody should be able
to figure out how to post in a sequentially meaningful manner.

Are there some newsreaders out there
that really make top-posting hard to follow?

All of them. It's just fine to top-post _once_, but when everybody is
posting on top of a sequence of top-posters, it's time for the bit bucket.

[I swore I'd had enough of this thread...]
--
derek

"Ann in Houston" wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling?

Net etiquette discourages top posting because it makes reading in
context much more difficult.

Correct net etiquette is to overlook spelling mistakes, in fact it
encourages spelling shortcuts, IMHO. Perfect spelling is not necessary
in news groups since most postings are conversational in nature and it
is more important to share ideas then to share correct spelling. I must
admit that I stop reading some posting since the misspellings make
reading a chore, and that is not what I am here for. I try to read what
I write before posting and usually run spell checker.

By the way, net etiquette dates back to the ARPANET days (the '70s and
'80s), well before the internet as we know it. Most of the people on
ARPANET were well educated but not English majors by any stretch of the
imagination. To many, English was a second language or third language.

"Ann in Houston" wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling?

Net etiquette discourages top posting because it makes reading in
context much more difficult.

Correct net etiquette is to overlook spelling mistakes, in fact it
encourages spelling shortcuts, IMHO. Perfect spelling is not necessary
in news groups since most postings are conversational in nature and it
is more important to share ideas then to share correct spelling. I must
admit that I stop reading some posting since the misspellings make
reading a chore, and that is not what I am here for. I try to read what
I write before posting and usually run spell checker.

By the way, net etiquette dates back to the ARPANET days (the '70s and
'80s), well before the internet as we know it. Most of the people on
ARPANET were well educated but not English majors by any stretch of the
imagination. To many, English was a second language or third language.

"Ann in Houston" wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling?

Net etiquette discourages top posting because it makes reading in
context much more difficult.

Correct net etiquette is to overlook spelling mistakes, in fact it
encourages spelling shortcuts, IMHO. Perfect spelling is not necessary
in news groups since most postings are conversational in nature and it
is more important to share ideas then to share correct spelling. I must
admit that I stop reading some posting since the misspellings make
reading a chore, and that is not what I am here for. I try to read what
I write before posting and usually run spell checker.

By the way, net etiquette dates back to the ARPANET days (the '70s and
'80s), well before the internet as we know it. Most of the people on
ARPANET were well educated but not English majors by any stretch of the
imagination. To many, English was a second language or third language.