On 5/4/04 3:22 AM, in article ,
"Rhiannon S" wrote:

Subject: FAQs
From: (gp)
Date: 03/05/2004 22:14 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Alan Gould wrote:

Top or bottom posting is entirely optional anywhere on the Internet.

Top posting is used by those who couldn't be bothered to format their
messages. Top posting is counter intuitive. Top posting is nasty.

Top posting will cause R'yleh to rise...
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
"The trick is to commit crimes so confusing that police feel too stupid to
even
write a crime report about them."
Aubrey on remaining at liberty
www.somethingpositive.net
Top posting? bottom posting?
Bottom posting works for me. I like it. I have connected to other
newsgroups and it could be either...Up or down.
I will read either up or down...don't want to miss any good stuff.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:00:21 GMT, gary davis
wrote:

Top posting? bottom posting?
Bottom posting works for me. I like it. I have connected to other
newsgroups and it could be either...Up or down.
I will read either up or down...don't want to miss any good stuff.


Because it doesn't make any sense.

Why is top-posting frowned upon?

On Fri, 14 May 2004 08:57:57 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:00:21 GMT, gary davis
wrote:

Top posting? bottom posting?
Bottom posting works for me. I like it. I have connected to other
newsgroups and it could be either...Up or down.
I will read either up or down...don't want to miss any good stuff.


Because it doesn't make any sense.

Why is top-posting frowned upon?

Do a google. we don't need to start this stupid discussion here.

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:00:21 GMT, gary davis
wrote:

Top posting? bottom posting?
Bottom posting works for me. I like it. I have connected to other
newsgroups and it could be either...Up or down.
I will read either up or down...don't want to miss any good stuff.


Because it doesn't make any sense.

Why is top-posting frowned upon?


A. Top Posting
Q. What is the one of the annoying things about Usenet?

Can you see why it is frowned upon now?

Bob

On 5/14/04 4:04 AM, in article , "Bob"
wrote:


"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:00:21 GMT, gary davis
wrote:

Top posting? bottom posting?
Bottom posting works for me. I like it. I have connected to other
newsgroups and it could be either...Up or down.
I will read either up or down...don't want to miss any good stuff.


Because it doesn't make any sense.

Why is top-posting frowned upon?


A. Top Posting
Q. What is the one of the annoying things about Usenet?

Can you see why it is frowned upon now?

Bob





Yikes...now I am confused! An answer, then the question...then another
question?
Bob, you have done well. Yours is a very good example of the problems
associated with communicating.
Communicating with people is difficult most of the time! Say one
thing...they hear something different. Say another thing, they will hear
something...different. I am told this is normal and I believe it is. Most
married persons will agree to this. If you don't, ask your spouse...(upper
management!)
Personally, I don't care if it is up or down, black, white, orange,
blue, pink or yellow! I just want to exchange ideas about gardening-and for
me it's vegetables...at this time.
Top posting does have some interesting advantages... especially if you
read all the posts on a regular basis. The latest post is right there and
you don't have to scroll through all the stuff you have already read...up or
down I'll read them.
Happy gardening.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada
PS: The ideas extolled above are not those of upper management...she is
asleep...

In article , gary davis
writes
Top posting does have some interesting advantages... especially if you
read all the posts on a regular basis.

Depends how many posts you read! I need a prompt to remind me what the
topic was about, and I find scrolling down to look at the previous
message than back up to look at the response just too tedious.

The latest post is right there and
you don't have to scroll through all the stuff you have already read.

You don't with bottom postng. The idea is that you post each bit of your
answer directly below the point you're replying to, and you snip
everything else.

The ideal is that you have one screenful of new stuff interspersed with
just a couple of lines of old stuff here and there, just enough to let
people know what the question is.

And as for those people who repost an entire 4 screenfuls just to add at
the end 'that was so good I've reposted it in full" !!!!!
--
Kay Easton

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

"gary davis" wrote in message
...
On 5/14/04 4:04 AM, in article , "Bob"
wrote:
Yikes...now I am confused! An answer, then the question...then another
question?
Bob, you have done well. Yours is a very good example of the problems
associated with communicating.
Communicating with people is difficult most of the time! Say one
thing...they hear something different. Say another thing, they will hear
something...different. I am told this is normal and I believe it is. Most
married persons will agree to this. If you don't, ask your spouse...(upper
management!)
Personally, I don't care if it is up or down, black, white, orange,
blue, pink or yellow! I just want to exchange ideas about gardening-and
for
me it's vegetables...at this time.
Top posting does have some interesting advantages... especially if you
read all the posts on a regular basis. The latest post is right there and
you don't have to scroll through all the stuff you have already read...up
or
down I'll read them.
Happy gardening.
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada
PS: The ideas extolled above are not those of upper management...she is
asleep...

You may not mind which way it is done, but I'm sure you would prefer it to
be consistant - either all top or all bottom - otherwise everything gets
messed up.

Since the convention in this newsgroup is to bottom post, those who insist
on top posting, despite being asked not to, and then continue to argue about
it, are worse then merely stubborn - they are arrogant and inconsiderate as
well.

Bob

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , gary davis
writes
Top posting does have some interesting advantages... especially if
you
read all the posts on a regular basis.

Depends how many posts you read! I need a prompt to remind me what
the
topic was about, and I find scrolling down to look at the previous
message than back up to look at the response just too tedious.

And even then, it is not always obvious that the response refers to.
The obvious place for a reply is in line, immediately below the point
being responded to, leaving a blank line above and below.

The latest post is right there and
you don't have to scroll through all the stuff you have already
read.

You don't with bottom postng. The idea is that you post each bit of
your
answer directly below the point you're replying to, and you snip
everything else.

That sometimes leads to lost context, but yes, vigorous snipping is by
and large preferable to threads which become intolerably long.

The ideal is that you have one screenful of new stuff interspersed
with
just a couple of lines of old stuff here and there, just enough to
let
people know what the question is.

And as for those people who repost an entire 4 screenfuls just to
add at
the end 'that was so good I've reposted it in full" !!!!!

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Bob" wrote in message
...

You may not mind which way it is done, but I'm sure you would prefer
it to
be consistant - either all top or all bottom - otherwise everything
gets
messed up.

Since the convention in this newsgroup is to bottom post,

Not quite. The convention is in-line posting, with each response
placed immediately below the remark being responded to.

I think that's what I and many other refer to as bottom posting! Not
'bottom of the whole post' but 'bottom of the bit you're responding to'.
Illogical terminology maybe, but it's what people who say they bottom
post do in practice.



--
Kay Easton

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

Kay Easton wrote:

I think that's what I and many other refer to as bottom posting! Not
'bottom of the whole post' but 'bottom of the bit you're responding to'.

For me, the point is quoting only the portion of the post that lets the
reader know what you're replying to, not the whole thing.

But that's just my opinion.

I may be wrong.

Bonus: The bed where I grew garlic last year has lots of bulbils and
missed fragments, so a bumper crop of garlic "scallions" to cut/pull before
I till it for other things.

Peace,


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at www.albany.net/~gwoods
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

"Kay Easton" wrote

I think that's what I and many other refer to as bottom posting! Not
'bottom of the whole post' but 'bottom of the bit you're responding to'.
Illogical terminology maybe, but it's what people who say they bottom
post do in practice.

Kay Easton

Maybe we need some new, more explicit, terminology............:

"Posting answering below the relevant bits as you go down page, and snipping as
much superfluous bits so as to make the whole thing more legible and therefore
more likely to be read by the majority of readers"

Jenny :~)

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

those who insist
on top posting, despite being asked not to, and then continue to
argue about
it, are worse then merely stubborn - they are arrogant and
inconsiderate as
well.

I agree whole heartedly about top posters. I would add "selfish" to
your list of adjectives.

And not the brightest in the world....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:01:26 +0200, "JennyC" wrote:

Maybe we need some new, more explicit, terminology............:

"Posting answering below the relevant bits as you go down page, and snipping as
much superfluous bits so as to make the whole thing more legible and therefore
more likely to be read by the majority of readers"


Something one or two contributors to this very thread might do well to
heed...

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Bob" wrote in message
...

You may not mind which way it is done, but I'm sure you would
prefer
it to
be consistant - either all top or all bottom - otherwise
everything
gets
messed up.

Since the convention in this newsgroup is to bottom post,

Not quite. The convention is in-line posting, with each response
placed immediately below the remark being responded to.

I think that's what I and many other refer to as bottom posting! Not
'bottom of the whole post' but 'bottom of the bit you're responding
to'.
Illogical terminology maybe, but it's what people who say they
bottom
post do in practice.

If that's what bottom posting means, I have been a bottom poster all
my life without knowing it.
{:-)

Franz

"JennyC" wrote in message
...

"Kay Easton" wrote

I think that's what I and many other refer to as bottom posting!
Not
'bottom of the whole post' but 'bottom of the bit you're
responding to'.
Illogical terminology maybe, but it's what people who say they
bottom
post do in practice.

Kay Easton

Maybe we need some new, more explicit, terminology............:

"Posting answering below the relevant bits as you go down page, and
snipping as
much superfluous bits so as to make the whole thing more legible and
therefore
more likely to be read by the majority of readers"

"Creative in-line posting" ?

Franz