In article , Xebug
writes

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...

Worst of all is a mixture, and since the usenet convention is bottom

I prefer middle posting myself. It's as ridiculous and difficult to read as
bottom posting, whilst disobeying convention the same way top-posting does,
thus pleasing everybody.

It doesn't disobey convention actually - bottom posting means 'at the
bottom of the point you're responding to' - as you have (almost) - not
'at the bottom of the whole post'

Sorry! ;-)
posting, it's easier to go with that than to get the majority to change
just for this one ng.
--

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Natalie
writes

Did *you* read the abc or were our efforts all those years ago in vain?
--
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



When I joined URG I did not see the "abc for newcomers" to read before
posting. Unfortunately it is not the first posting you see when you join
:-(

When I joined, now over 7 years ago, everything written about the net
made you very aware of the need to check usenet conventions before
posting, to check that the subject of the newsgroup was indeed what you
thought (alt.life.universe.everything, alt.fan.british.accent and
alt.learning-to-lead are just 3 I know of which are not what they seem),
and check any particular rules of the group (eg 'no flaming' or 'no sigs
longer than 4 lines')

I don't think this is the case now?

Do people still look at the ng before posting and lurk awhile to get the
flavour of the group?
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , shannie
writes

No Jane, I have to admit that initially I did not read it as I didn't know
it existed When I first started on newsgroups I knew relatively nothing,
I didn't know about faq's or guidelines or anything else. What happened in
my case was,( as Im sure has been the case with others) It was recommended
to me that I try newsgroups, however I didn't know about the 'rules'. So in
I ploughed with both feet. It was in fact a member here who pointed me in
the right direction and I found the faq's, the abc and the websites. I wish
I *had* known about them before posting, but obviously didn't 'lurk' long
enough. Your collective efforts were not in vain at all, it's concise and
well organised and easy to understand but there are always those of us who
miss it initially.

So it does seem something more might be needed - if only a pointer in a
sig to the FAQs and the abc.

But if I were to do that in my sig, would it be regarded as helpful? Or
would I get accusing me of thinking I own the group?
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Peter Goddard
writes
Personally I detest bottom posting since it often involves scrolling through
reams of quoted posts and answers which I've already seen and that someone
has been too idle to snip!

If I can't see the start of a reply on the screen then I just ignore the
post and go on to the next one. Similarly, if I can't understand what a
top poster is going on about within a line or so, I'm blowed if I am
going to spend time scrolling down and then back up again, so again I
just ignore it and go on to the next post. You always come to one pretty
quickly that has been judiciously snipped so you can get the gist of the
thread that way.
--
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

In article , Xebug -
THIS-TO-EMAIL.com writes

That's because it's common sense to top-post.

Balls!!
Who wants to scroll down and then up again so that they can find out
what a top poster is parping on about!!!!!!!!

The best way is to do exactly what *you* have done - intersperse your
replies with the bits of the original that you are responding to and
snip out the rest.

--
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

In article , shannie
writes

That being said, the abc actually doesn't refer to top or bottom posting as
far as I can see, just to the nonposting of binaries and editing down
messages to keep them concise.

It says this:

(2) When you are replying to a message, it's a good idea to edit down
your quotes (snipping) to the point(s) that you are actually addressing,
but be sure that you have kept enough in to make it intelligible!

Ok, maybe it is not entirely clear so perhaps we should make it a little
more explicit.
Incidentally, we named it abc because some news readers organise posts
in alphabetical sequence. On those readers it would appear at the top.
--
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

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Jane Ransom wrote:

That being said, the abc actually doesn't refer to top or bottom posting as
far as I can see, just to the nonposting of binaries and editing down
messages to keep them concise.

It says this:

(2) When you are replying to a message, it's a good idea to edit down
your quotes (snipping) to the point(s) that you are actually addressing,
but be sure that you have kept enough in to make it intelligible!

Ok, maybe it is not entirely clear so perhaps we should make it a little
more explicit.

OK, I'm open to suggestions.....

--
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet: | writing from |
| Fidonet: David Rance 2:252/110 | Caversham, |
| BBS: telnet://mesnil.demon.co.uk | Reading, UK |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

The message
from Pam Moore contains these words:

/snip/
In truth it really doesn't matter too much - people get worked up about the
strangest things....

I agree w.
If you follow the tread from the beginning you don't need to read the
earlier posts over and over.
If people snip sensibly it is fine, but to scroll through 3 pages and
then find "Thanks I'll try that" is a total waste of time.
I know there will never be agreement on this and we have to go with
the majority and netiquette.

However, the person who joins the thread after it is established is in a
bugger's muddle.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

The message
from "Robert" contains these words:

Peter Goddard wrote:
: Bottom posting means putting your reply beneath a copy of the original
: posting - the logical place for the convenience of people who haven't
: been following the thread.
: Top posting is like this ... with the original post beneath for
: reference. Considerate posters will snip (delete) out parts of the
: original post that aren't relevant to their reply.

There isn't much which isn't relevant, so I won't snip. I'm sure this
state of affairs will change though, as the thread progresses.
:
: Personally I detest bottom posting since it often involves scrolling
: through reams of quoted posts and answers which I've already seen and
: that someone has been too idle to snip!

This isn't the fault of bottom-posting, it's the fault of the poster.
Usually, if there is no new script in the window, I delete the post
unread. And it doesn't make any difference to that kind of poster, who
will put a one line (or worse, two word) reply at the top and not snip
any of the text to which he/she is replying.

I must say, top-posters are the worst offenders here, and if only for
that reason, I'd welcome a killfile facility for weeding-out top-posted
replies.
:
: In truth it really doesn't matter too much - people get worked up
: about the strangest things....

It is a slow and laborious method, and counter to any logical system. I
rarely read top-posts.
:
: "Helen" wrote in message
: om...
:: Fine.
:: Ok, Please could you explain what 'top' and 'bottom' posting are
:: please???

I'm glad i found someone else who agrees! Seems to me only common sense to
top post but as you see I complied for a bit of peace

However, if you lurk in a newsgrup before you post (there are
extenuating circumstances sometimes) you'll get the general drift of the
group's norms. You get a much better reception if you follow these.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

The message
from "Xebug" contains these words:
"shannie" wrote in message
...
I dont want to start a war, just throwing out a simple suggestion ;-)

Toooooo late :-)

As many newbies come into groups with their questions or comments there
is
a tendancy, if they are not sure of things, to top post, as was the case
when I first started posting.

Funny thing. My experience is exactly the reverse. As was my initial tendency.

That's because it's common sense to top-post. Nearly all newsreaders are
designed in such a way to encourage it, both in reading and writing posts.
Try using google groups, it's impossible to keep up with long posts when
they're bottom posted. It just takes too long to follow conversations.

No, it's not common sense to top-post. It's just sheer laziness. It's
contrary to all the norms of conversation. unless you are a clairvoyant
you reply to a point after it has been made.

Generally somebody points out the error of
their ways and one of two things happen, either a) the poster takes it
well
and goes on to bottom posting or b) the poster takes offence and a minor
squabble ensues and the whole top/bottom posting debate rears it's ugly
head. I've seen this happen again and again. I just wondered if people put
a
line under their sig..eg...please bottom post for clarity...(or something
along those lines)

It should only take one reading of the posts in a newsgroup to reveal
the general structure of replies, and the usual tone of them.

What about "Please bottom post because of another geeky convention designed
to make usenet less friendly to newcomers"

Probably because there'd be a thread like this following every such sig?

rhaps new lurkers would know straight away it's prefered
and when they do finally post they can get right down to the subject of
their post with the minimum of bad feeling?
Just a thought :-)

Shannie

There *is* a logic to bottom posting, but the structure of usenet wasn't
designed to make bottom posting the elegant process it should have been.
Take a look at a good web-forum such as vbulletin, there you'll see how
bottom posting works well, it's integral to the structure of the forum, not
in the way people structure their replies.

The structure of Usenet is entirely neutral. With the burgeoning numbers
coming on lie though, an accepted user policy was drawn up. This
favoured bottom-posting (and interleaved posting) as the norm.

--
Frère Jaques
They knocked the Bell down and erected a charade of pops.

snip
OK, I'm open to suggestions.....

--
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet: | writing from |
| Fidonet: David Rance 2:252/110 | Caversham, |
| BBS: telnet://mesnil.demon.co.uk | Reading, UK |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

The posts for the "abc for....." is not showing when I use outlook express.
If I do a "find" with abc as the subject it finds them, but they don't show
when I scroll thought the posts.
May be other people cant see them either.

PA

In message , Jaques d'Altrades
writes
I'd welcome a killfile facility for weeding-out top-posted replies.

I was thinking that in response to this thread as well - hard to define
though, as folks tend to alert readers to changes to cross-posting and
followups with a brief note at the top.

--
dave @ stejonda

Jane Ransom pushed briefly to the front of the
queue on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:06:12 +0100, and nailed this to the shed
door:

^ In article , shannie
^ writes

^ That being said, the abc actually doesn't refer to top or bottom posting as
^ far as I can see, just to the nonposting of binaries and editing down
^ messages to keep them concise.
^
^ It says this:

^ (2) When you are replying to a message, it's a good idea to edit down
^ your quotes (snipping) to the point(s) that you are actually addressing,
^ but be sure that you have kept enough in to make it intelligible!
^
^ Ok, maybe it is not entirely clear so perhaps we should make it a little
^ more explicit.

It /is/ entirely clear, and it also entirely fails to mention the
subject of top vs bottom posting. On the other hand, that subject
transcends specific newsgroups and is adequately covered in other
Usenet FAQs - but then, how many people coming to newsgroups for the
first time even realise that Usenet = newsgroups? I have received
blank looks from PC support at work before now when I have used the
term expecting them to be familiar with it. Enough said.

Someone else in this thread said that top posting was "common sense".
FWIW, I happen to agree with that, witness the fact that newbies
almost invariably do it - and in the absence of anything better to go
on, people are going to go on common sense. That's how I started.
Needless to say it wasn't long before I got the inevitable rebukes.
And needless to say, I defended common sense, for a while. But as I
spent more time on Usenet, I came to agree with the received wisdom,
because I invariably found that posts structured that way were easier
to follow, and to follow up. I have been having the argument with one
of my oldest friends (not a Usenet user) for a couple of years now,
because I've carried the practice of bottom-posting over into email
and he invariably cracks up about it.

Actually, the whole argument is a little futile, because as someone
else pointed out, following up is often not as simple as plonking a
single contribution at the start or the end. Interspersing a series of
contributions through a posting is often indicated (although this
tends to be a sterile practice inasmuch as it's nearly impossible to
follow up again except by snipping all but one point), but inasmuch as
doing this can only sensibly be done in a bottom-posting style (it's
just like a transcribed conversation), top-posting is still
contra-indicated.

As far as I can see, just about every argument pro and contra both
ways of doing things have been eloquently put in this thread, and I've
picked up one or two of them explicitly again, but I'd be remiss if I
didn't pick up the last one that I have mentioned yet, the most
important one of all:

"If I can't see the start of a reply on the screen then I just ignore
the post and go on to the next one."

Absolutely what she said (having just enlarged his own screen a little
to make sure that the start of his reply was visible). Rather a top
poster who's judicious with the scissors than a bottom-posting
ten-levels-deep three-pages-of-shite "me-too" merchant.

There. If that's not sitting on the (garden) fence par excellence, I
don't know what is.

Andy

--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk

Give me a nice smooth, peaty island malt any day.
Tomorrow would do nicely.
Bob Goddard, uk.rec.sheddizen

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Xebug wrote:

There *is* a logic to bottom posting, but the structure of usenet wasn't
designed to make bottom posting the elegant process it should have been.
Take a look at a good web-forum such as vbulletin, there you'll see how
bottom posting works well, it's integral to the structure of the forum, not
in the way people structure their replies.

Nothing to do with the structure of Usenet but rather the software that
we are using. It is the fact that, when replying with quoted text, most
programs place the cursor above the quoted text rather than below it.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet: | writing from |
| Fidonet: David Rance 2:252/110 | Caversham, |
| BBS: telnet://mesnil.demon.co.uk | Reading, UK |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, PA wrote:

OK, I'm open to suggestions.....

The posts for the "abc for....." is not showing when I use outlook express.
If I do a "find" with abc as the subject it finds them, but they don't show
when I scroll thought the posts.
May be other people cant see them either.

Hmm, that's interesting and I've no idea why that happens. It would
also explain why a number of people say they've never seen the abc.

I wonder if we should go back to something different. After all, how
many people here list their messages in alphabetical order of subject?

--
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet: | writing from |
| Fidonet: David Rance 2:252/110 | Caversham, |
| BBS: telnet://mesnil.demon.co.uk | Reading, UK |
+-------------------------------------------------------+