On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:54:35 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from "Charlie" contains these words:

Boy, you're gonna get flamed now! =D

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Janet

I'm a bit surprised to see so much contention in a group devoted to one
of life's most peaceful activities, maybe some of those inconsiderate
top posters should get out in the garden more often g

Bart

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:54:35 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from "Charlie" contains these words:

Boy, you're gonna get flamed now! =D

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Oh come on! Do you mean to say Janet, that when you open a message
and see "original text" at the top you delete it straight away?

I don't top post (unless with good reason) but I suppose I might
aggravate people by cutting off the whole of the dialogue before the
remark to which I am replying. I will however include sufficient of
the previous dialogue if otherwise the message I was sending wouldn't
make sense as a whole.

If it's starts at the top when I open the message, I know what the
thread's about so I might know exactly what the person's talking
about. I can't remember ever getting annoyed at paging down to find
out the context of the remark.

All this anti top posting is maybe so we can all pride ourselves in
endless interjections ....

... and that I do find inconvenient, Scrolling down through the
message politely finding the farewell salutation and then finding a
bit more original text to find it starts with "but on the other hand"
or some such. Then you're damn well forced to read the previous text
to find out .. oh what's this then, if you are that interested anyway
because the original thread has been threaded into further trains of
thought or argument (usually the latter).

In fact I think I would prefer a top post starting with "You say it's
not important to dilute your wee before putting it on the compost
heap, but the other day ...."

Whose side am I on anyway?

Nobody's but mee oon

Please forgive the conceit.

Hussein
Grow a little garden

spam block - for real addy, reverse letters of second level domain.

"Hussein M." wrote ...
Janet Baraclough wrote:

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't
bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Oh come on! Do you mean to say Janet, that when you open a message
and see "original text" at the top you delete it straight away?

I'm with Janet on this - in 99% of cases I too skip top postings.
Life is too short to bother sorting out who said what :~)
Jenny

In article , JennyC
writes


Life is too short to bother sorting out who said what :~)
Jenny


and what do you do with the extra seconds you save by not sorting it all
out?

Rather like the motorist who has to overtake you to save half a minute.
What does he do with that half a minute?

Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forthcoming reunions. H.M.S.Collingwood Association Chatham May 30th - June 2nd
British Pacific Fleet Hayling Island Sept 5th - 8th
Castle Class Corvettes Assn. Isle of Wight. Oct 3rd - 6th.
R.N. Trafalgar Weekend Leamington Spa. Oct 10th - 13th. Plus many more

".........Rather like the motorist who has to overtake you to save half a
minute.
What does he do with that half a minute?...."

He/she spends it waiting at the traffic lights that just turn red as they
get to them.



--
David Hill
Abacus Nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

In article , Hussein M.
writes
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:54:35 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Oh come on! Do you mean to say Janet, that when you open a message
and see "original text" at the top you delete it straight away?

If it is a reply which includes lots of quotes underneath, I certainly
don't bother to read it.
I just skip to the next article in the hope that I will be able to
follow the conversation in a logical sequence instead of having to
scroll down to get the gist and then scroll back up to see what the
reply relates to.
Similarly with people who don't snip threads. If I can't see a reply
after one scroll, I just go on to the next article.
URG is now so big that I just don't have time to read all bits of every
article and trying to find out where the reply is and what it refers to
is something I just don't bother doing any more.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

"Jane Ransom" wrote
snipped
URG is now so big that I just don't have time to read all bits of
every
article and trying to find out where the reply is and what it refers
to
is something I just don't bother doing any more.
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.

I also skip everything with 'cat' in the title
And nearly all vegetable queries
And leylandi stuff
And grass/lawns
And fruit trees...................

Makes URG much more manageable
Jenny :~)

In message , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "Charlie" contains these words:

Boy, you're gonna get flamed now! =D

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Indeed, I didn't see the post until Charlie quoted it.

--
dave @ stejonda

VivienB wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:10:12 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from "Roberto" contains these words:

This group is too large, there is not enough time to read all the
messages,

Do you read every single article in your daily newspaper? Or do you
select whichever headlines/authors/topics interest you?

Big is beautiful where usenet is concerned. We're lucky in this group
to have such a wide range of posts that it's always possible to find
some worth reading. Boorish topics and posters can be automatically
filtered out by software, or left unopened.

He's using Outlook Express, not a proper newsreader - perhaps it isn't
possible to filter out what he doesn't want?


Seems like a strange remark for a group dedicated to gardening in the UK.
still, variety is the spice of life - they say and whilst everyone is
entitled to employ preference in their own choice of software, please ensure
you have facts available - many newbies read this group

===

Large, active groups have their virtues, it rather depends on your
motivation for subscribing. Many come to usenet to share/acquire
knowledge/views, for others it is a relatively cheap recreational activity.
well for me it's cheaper than gardening and we do that on a shoe-string
budget.

In any event, have fun
--
William Tasso

in article , JennyC at
wrote on 27/4/03 7:39 am:


"Hussein M." wrote ...
Janet Baraclough wrote:

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't
bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Oh come on! Do you mean to say Janet, that when you open a message
and see "original text" at the top you delete it straight away?

I'm with Janet on this - in 99% of cases I too skip top postings.
Life is too short to bother sorting out who said what :~)
Jenny


Agreed. If people can't be bothered to follow a logical sequence of posting,
why should anyone else be bothered to figure out their laziness?
--

Sacha

in article , Mike at
wrote on 27/4/03 8:01 am:

In article , JennyC
writes


Life is too short to bother sorting out who said what :~)
Jenny


and what do you do with the extra seconds you save by not sorting it all
out?

Rather like the motorist who has to overtake you to save half a minute.
What does he do with that half a minute?

I read another, better laid out message from a more considerate poster.
--

Sacha

Not really Charlie!
I'm tired of scrolling down for ages just to see:
LOL or ROTFL!

I read all messages I'm interested in whether it's top posted or not!
If there is information to be gained then it is worth it, don't you think?

Badger



"Charlie" wrote in message
...
Boy, you're gonna get flamed now! =D

Charlie.

"Little Badger" wrote in message
...
I agree Charlie! As long as it's on topic who cares?

Badger (Top posting)


"Charlie" wrote in message
...

"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message
...

can it also enable one to post at the bottom in line with usenet
conventions??


I'd say so, I just prefer not to. =D

There aren't any newsreader I know that begin reading at the bottom of
the
message!

Charlie.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 18/04/03






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 18/04/03

The message
from Hussein M. contains these words:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:54:35 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from "Charlie" contains these words:

Boy, you're gonna get flamed now! =D

He's not likely to get any reaction at all from those who don't bother
reading persistent top-posters.

Oh come on! Do you mean to say Janet, that when you open a message
and see "original text" at the top you delete it straight away?

No. Haven't you followed the thread? When newbies arrive, I make a
point of answering **however awkwardly their posts are presented**. IOW,
I read innocent newbies who top-post, but only for a limited time. As
they become habitual urglers, I expect them to gradually pick up the
rudiments of clear posting, (which is made easy for them in the weekly
abc post).

After a while, even after someone has politely suggested otherwise,
some no-longer-new posters persistently top post, or repost unedited
unnecessary screeds unedited. I consider that a discourtesy to the group
because it makes big threads so hard to follow; and I've noticed that
those who deliberately go down that road, seldom have anything witty or
wise to say.

No, I don't bother to open their posts then shut them; I just set my
newsreader so that I don't see them any more (unless someone else quotes
from them, as Charlie did Badger's in this instance). As this thread
shows, I'm not alone.

Some newbie top-posters don't realise what effect their habit has on
other readers. They might prefer to continue getting replies from
posters who know what they are talking about.

Janet.

"Little Badger" wrote in message
...
I agree Charlie! As long as it's on topic who cares?

Who cares about what?

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

"Charlie" wrote in message
...
Boy, you're gonna get flamed now! =D

Flamed about what?

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk