The message
from martin contains these words:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:22:07 +0000, Pam Moore
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:59:06 +0000, Alan Gould
wrote:

Somebody on another group recently made a comment along the lines that
scum prefers to float on the top. :-)

As does cream!

Well said Alan!

Pam in Bristol

but you bottom posted, Pam :-)

Pam's a lady: of course she did.

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

The message
from (Philip) contains these words:

The merits of Top vs Bottom posting rather depends on how you read
your Usenet.

If you are following through a thread reading post after post (as I
frequently do) then top posting is ideal.

It's how I treat it, but as the posts arrive.

I find that I rarely forget what the theme of the thread is about, and
if I do I only need to nip back to the start of the branch to refresh
my memory.

Hang on a mo' while I go and count the newsgroups I subscribe to. back
in a mo'.

Hmmm. Thirty.

Most of them, it's true, have only the occasional post, but others can
have thousands a week. The Shed, for instance. So, no. I very often
can't remember broad brushstrokes, let alone the fine detail of who said
what, and in which thread.

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

No, I never go to an online server for my news: I have an offline
reader, and all the posts to the groups I'm subscribed to since my last
connection are compressed into a packet on the server and downloaded
compressed, then expanded and read at leisure.

When I started reading Usenet, I never saw top posting at all.

Bah! Yoofertoday!

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:08:24 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:22:07 +0000, Pam Moore
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:59:06 +0000, Alan Gould
wrote:

Somebody on another group recently made a comment along the lines that
scum prefers to float on the top. :-)

As does cream!

Well said Alan!

Pam in Bristol

but you bottom posted, Pam :-)

Pam's a lady: of course she did.

and very considerate too, considering.

Any connection between Pam in Bristol and Cream?
--
Martin

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes
Let's start a new trend.

Yes, why not? Being trendy is something I've seldom been credited with!

Whenever I see discussions about top or bottom posting, it reminds me of
Jonathan Swift's Big-endians and Little-endians in Gulliver's Travels.
It was his way of mocking people who have little else to niggle about.
There's always a wealth of gardening issues to deal with here without
any need to spend time on such trivialities.... and that's the top and
bottom of it IMHO. ;-)
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
: In article , Nick Maclaren
: writes
: Let's start a new trend.
:
: Yes, why not? Being trendy is something I've seldom been credited with!
:
: Whenever I see discussions about top or bottom posting, it reminds me of
: Jonathan Swift's Big-endians and Little-endians in Gulliver's Travels.
: It was his way of mocking people who have little else to niggle about.
: There's always a wealth of gardening issues to deal with here without
: any need to spend time on such trivialities.... and that's the top and
: bottom of it IMHO. ;-)
: --
: Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

Are there? I must be missing something?

K

"Philip" wrote in message
m...
Jaques

The merits of Top vs Bottom posting rather depends on how you read
your Usenet.

If you are following through a thread reading post after post (as I
frequently do) then top posting is ideal.

I find that I rarely forget what the theme of the thread is about, and
if I do I only need to nip back to the start of the branch to refresh
my memory.

But if the posting had been in-line, the context would have been right
there, above the line you are writing in reply.

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Philip" wrote in message
m...
Jaques

The merits of Top vs Bottom posting rather depends on how you read
your Usenet.

If you are following through a thread reading post after post (as I
frequently do) then top posting is ideal.

I find that I rarely forget what the theme of the thread is about, and
if I do I only need to nip back to the start of the branch to refresh
my memory.

But if the posting had been in-line, the context would have been right
there, above the line you are writing in reply.

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

Franz



I am not claiming that top posting is a cure for all the worlds ills, but on
Google it solves the problem of people who cannot be bothered to trim the
previous posts.

Google has a limit to the number of lines that it shows. There after you
must click a link to read the rest of a post. Now if the posting is at the
top, problem solved.

It odd each of us has our hangups about newsnet. My particular beef is the
posting of Off Topic posts. I know you cannot control the direction of a
thread, but to start one with a Subject line "OT: ......." just gets my
goat.

Phil

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

No, I never go to an online server for my news: I have an offline
reader, and all the posts to the groups I'm subscribed to since my last
connection are compressed into a packet on the server and downloaded
compressed, then expanded and read at leisure.



The luxury of sitting at the same computer to read your News is indeed a
idyllic position to be in.

Phil

The message
from "Philip" contains these words:

It odd each of us has our hangups about newsnet. My particular beef is the
posting of Off Topic posts. I know you cannot control the direction of a
thread, but to start one with a Subject line "OT: ......." just gets my
goat.

You can blame spam for that. Largely.

There's so much of it that very few people post from a valid address and
as you might have noticed, one recent attempt at transferring a
discussion to e-mail resulted in a bounce.

Only in the last year or so have I felt compelled to post from a spoof
address. And sometimes, I Myosotis not-me-not......

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

The message
from "Philip" contains these words:

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

No, I never go to an online server for my news: I have an offline
reader, and all the posts to the groups I'm subscribed to since my last
connection are compressed into a packet on the server and downloaded
compressed, then expanded and read at leisure.



The luxury of sitting at the same computer to read your News is indeed a
idyllic position to be in.

Laptop?

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote in message ...
The message
from "Philip" contains these words:

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

No, I never go to an online server for my news: I have an offline
reader, and all the posts to the groups I'm subscribed to since my last
connection are compressed into a packet on the server and downloaded
compressed, then expanded and read at leisure.



The luxury of sitting at the same computer to read your News is indeed a
idyllic position to be in.

Laptop?


Yes please.

But seriously that's not really feasible either.

With the threat of viruses and other nasty things most employers do
not permit the use of '3rd party' computers on their networks. For
most businesses the risk from foreign PC's is not the ingress of
viruses but rather the invalidation of their business continuity
insurance.

The message
from (Philip) contains these words:

Laptop?


Yes please.

But seriously that's not really feasible either.

With the threat of viruses and other nasty things most employers do
not permit the use of '3rd party' computers on their networks. For
most businesses the risk from foreign PC's is not the ingress of
viruses but rather the invalidation of their business continuity
insurance.

I have no connection with any firm which uses a network. Largely, I work
from home, but if I do a bit of 'outwork' it is with another hi-fi
supplier and I can connect to his phone line (using the 0800 number, he
doesn't squeak too much!)

Just as an aside, the only virus in an uncompressed form of any sort
I've ever had on any of my computers in around eight years online I
found as an attachment to a post in rec.audio.high-end (shows how long
ago *THAT* was!). It was a Trojan, and I downloaded it so I could
dissect it.

Since I was using Win 3.11 at the time I knew it couldn't run even if it
was double-poked as it was aimed at Win 95 and OE users.

My mail and news program downloads compressed packets of mail and news,
which is processed offline. Any attachments have to be decoded before
they can be inspected, and are sent to another directory, and you have
to physically run them (if you want to).

So, you have to be incredibly gullible to contract a virus using ZIMACS.
I was collecting more than thirty Swens a day before Zetnet began
swatting them on the server. I can open any mail containing a virus
without running it.

Now, how I wish the Zetgods would turn their attention to aphids......

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

"Philip" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Philip" wrote in message
m...
Jaques

The merits of Top vs Bottom posting rather depends on how you read
your Usenet.

If you are following through a thread reading post after post (as I
frequently do) then top posting is ideal.

I find that I rarely forget what the theme of the thread is about, and
if I do I only need to nip back to the start of the branch to refresh
my memory.

But if the posting had been in-line, the context would have been right
there, above the line you are writing in reply.

Do you ever use Google to read the Usenet, maybe if you were to try
that then you may appreciate why people top post.

Franz



I am not claiming that top posting is a cure for all the worlds ills, but
on
Google it solves the problem of people who cannot be bothered to trim the
previous posts.

Google has a limit to the number of lines that it shows. There after you
must click a link to read the rest of a post. Now if the posting is at
the
top, problem solved.

It odd each of us has our hangups about newsnet. My particular beef is
the
posting of Off Topic posts. I know you cannot control the direction of a
thread, but to start one with a Subject line "OT: ......." just gets my
goat.

Downloading a typical message costs in the region of 300 micropenny, so
financial considerations are irrelevant. If you nevertheless don't want to
read off topic posts, why do you bother to read them at all? Why not either
delete them or just mark them as read? Or just use OE to block that
particular thread?

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

Franz!!
Please!!!!

Snip!


--
Kay Easton

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

The message
from Jaques d'Alltrades contains these words:

Now, how I wish the Zetgods would turn their attention to aphids......

They are so obliging, I'm sure they would, if only we asked. Or we
could have a zetnet gardening ng, entirely free of spam and turkey :~}

Janet