wrote:

None of you get it do you??

You don't get it. You top posted.

If you are not interested in net etiquette in rec.ponds, then don't
follow this thread. Simple.

Manners are a part of life and manners in this group are a part of this
group. Unfortunately some people have been using poor manners in this
group. They should be set on the bottom of the pool until spring

wrote:

None of you get it do you??

You don't get it. You top posted.

If you are not interested in net etiquette in rec.ponds, then don't
follow this thread. Simple.

Manners are a part of life and manners in this group are a part of this
group. Unfortunately some people have been using poor manners in this
group. They should be set on the bottom of the pool until spring

wrote:

None of you get it do you??

You don't get it. You top posted.

If you are not interested in net etiquette in rec.ponds, then don't
follow this thread. Simple.

Manners are a part of life and manners in this group are a part of this
group. Unfortunately some people have been using poor manners in this
group. They should be set on the bottom of the pool until spring

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:01:40 -0000,
wrote:

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.


This is to Fireball. LOOK WHOSE MOANING?

There are MANY reasons for not top posting. First and foremost, if
someone joins a conversation late, they may need to re-read all of the
previous postings to catch up. By posting on top, it makes that
impossible to do by the time there are 4 or 5 messages in a thread.

Pointing out in a thread titled "top posting" a message about top
posting is perfectly fine. If you only want to read about "fishies"
just read those threads.

Your moaning and whining and telling others to grow up says more about
YOU than it does convince others not to point out netiquette
(netiquette means etiquette for how to post on the internet and
newsgroups).

James, Seattle

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:01:40 -0000,
wrote:

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.


This is to Fireball. LOOK WHOSE MOANING?

There are MANY reasons for not top posting. First and foremost, if
someone joins a conversation late, they may need to re-read all of the
previous postings to catch up. By posting on top, it makes that
impossible to do by the time there are 4 or 5 messages in a thread.

Pointing out in a thread titled "top posting" a message about top
posting is perfectly fine. If you only want to read about "fishies"
just read those threads.

Your moaning and whining and telling others to grow up says more about
YOU than it does convince others not to point out netiquette
(netiquette means etiquette for how to post on the internet and
newsgroups).

James, Seattle

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:04:48 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
wrote:

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

Some basic standards are needed. We all write left to right and use
punctuation for instance. When people bottom post, someone can join a
conversation with 6 or 7 previous posts and read through ONE post, top
to bottom, and read the entire conversation.

If you want to respond to specific points within a post, the only way
to do that is by quoting, and then replying after each specific
point... what happens when you have top and bottom posts in the same
thread? It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to follow...

Even in THIS post, some reading it and missing your previous post can
read what YOU said, and then my response, to do it the OTHER WAY would
either mean the person wouldn't have a clue as to what I was
responding to OR skip to the bottom, read your post, and then back up
to read my reply.


you might as well write from right to left.

James, Seattle

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:04:48 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
wrote:

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

Some basic standards are needed. We all write left to right and use
punctuation for instance. When people bottom post, someone can join a
conversation with 6 or 7 previous posts and read through ONE post, top
to bottom, and read the entire conversation.

If you want to respond to specific points within a post, the only way
to do that is by quoting, and then replying after each specific
point... what happens when you have top and bottom posts in the same
thread? It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to follow...

Even in THIS post, some reading it and missing your previous post can
read what YOU said, and then my response, to do it the OTHER WAY would
either mean the person wouldn't have a clue as to what I was
responding to OR skip to the bottom, read your post, and then back up
to read my reply.


you might as well write from right to left.

James, Seattle

In , on 11/01/04
at 01:07 PM, "Stephen M. Henning" said:

The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the
message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath
the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing new
posts. Check out this site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

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

It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.


Alan

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comccast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.1

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

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

It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.



We've had this discussion in alt. food wine already. Bottom posting
is the norm. In rec. birds most bottom but not all (;-{

All the best,

Larry
Southern Ontario

Derek Broughton wrote in message ...
Crashj wrote:

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:12:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote something like:


there are worse things than topposting. (Funny, though)

Tell me about it. Ever hear of Ed Conrad? ;-)

LOL. I hadn't, but Google had. Now I wish I still hadn't. How do you use
the word "pseudoscience" as a _positive_ self-descriptive term?

You lucky innocent. I've been alternately reading or avoiding reading
Ed on talk.origins for over 10 years now. He's one of these life-long
crackpots for whom the invention and popularization of the internet
was a God-send: finally, they could annoy (or entertain) people all
over the world with their obsession, instead of just their immediate
family, neighbours, and the letters editor of the local paper.
Recently, he's been invited to some big conference of pseudo-science
where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

-- Kizhe (dupe and lackey of the Scientific Establishment)

Derek Broughton wrote in message ...
Crashj wrote:

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:12:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote something like:


there are worse things than topposting. (Funny, though)

Tell me about it. Ever hear of Ed Conrad? ;-)

LOL. I hadn't, but Google had. Now I wish I still hadn't. How do you use
the word "pseudoscience" as a _positive_ self-descriptive term?

You lucky innocent. I've been alternately reading or avoiding reading
Ed on talk.origins for over 10 years now. He's one of these life-long
crackpots for whom the invention and popularization of the internet
was a God-send: finally, they could annoy (or entertain) people all
over the world with their obsession, instead of just their immediate
family, neighbours, and the letters editor of the local paper.
Recently, he's been invited to some big conference of pseudo-science
where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

-- Kizhe (dupe and lackey of the Scientific Establishment)

Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

Take that back! How can you possibly call Von Daniken a charlatan?

I'm shocked, I say, shocked!!!!! (I almost forgot to include enough
exclamations!!!!!!).
--
derek

Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

Take that back! How can you possibly call Von Daniken a charlatan?

I'm shocked, I say, shocked!!!!! (I almost forgot to include enough
exclamations!!!!!!).
--
derek

On or about Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:54:33 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote something like:

Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

Take that back! How can you possibly call Von Daniken a charlatan?

I'm shocked, I say, shocked!!!!! (I almost forgot to include enough
exclamations!!!!!!).

You forgot "appalled"
--
Crashj

On or about Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:54:33 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote something like:

Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

Take that back! How can you possibly call Von Daniken a charlatan?

I'm shocked, I say, shocked!!!!! (I almost forgot to include enough
exclamations!!!!!!).

You forgot "appalled"
--
Crashj