OT: Speaking of "top posting"
12-06-2004, 06:07 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
OT: Speaking of "top posting"
I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't have
to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
un-necessary junk.
--
JimG
80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't have
to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
un-necessary junk.
--
JimG
80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
12-06-2004, 06:16 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread. And if I do need
to see a history, it is easy to scroll down to see it. I find it much
quicker to open and read, rather than open - scroll through 3 weeks of
history - then read.
I give one vote to top posting
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
> have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
>
> --
> JimG
> 80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
> 4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
> 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
> Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
>
> 00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
> 4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
> 33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
> D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
>
>
re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread. And if I do need
to see a history, it is easy to scroll down to see it. I find it much
quicker to open and read, rather than open - scroll through 3 weeks of
history - then read.
I give one vote to top posting
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
> have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
>
> --
> JimG
> 80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
> 4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
> 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
> Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
>
> 00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
> 4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
> 33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
> D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
>
>
12-06-2004, 06:16 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread. And if I do need
to see a history, it is easy to scroll down to see it. I find it much
quicker to open and read, rather than open - scroll through 3 weeks of
history - then read.
I give one vote to top posting
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
> have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
>
> --
> JimG
> 80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
> 4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
> 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
> Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
>
> 00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
> 4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
> 33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
> D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
>
>
re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread. And if I do need
to see a history, it is easy to scroll down to see it. I find it much
quicker to open and read, rather than open - scroll through 3 weeks of
history - then read.
I give one vote to top posting
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
> have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
>
> --
> JimG
> 80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
> 4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
> 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
> Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
>
> 00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
> 4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
> 33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
> D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
>
>
12-06-2004, 06:16 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread. And if I do need
to see a history, it is easy to scroll down to see it. I find it much
quicker to open and read, rather than open - scroll through 3 weeks of
history - then read.
I give one vote to top posting
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
> have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
>
> --
> JimG
> 80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
> 4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
> 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
> Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
>
> 00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
> 4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
> 33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
> D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
>
>
re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread. And if I do need
to see a history, it is easy to scroll down to see it. I find it much
quicker to open and read, rather than open - scroll through 3 weeks of
history - then read.
I give one vote to top posting
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
> have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
>
> --
> JimG
> 80' CJ-7 258 CID, HEI
> 4.56 Gears, Lock-Right F&R
> 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> D44 Rear, D30 Front. SOA
> Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries
>
> 00' TJ Sport 4.0L, 5sp
> 4.56 Gears, TrueTrac rear
> 33" BFG AT on 15x8 Eagle Alloys
> D35 Rear, D30 Front. 3" Suspension Lift
>
>
12-06-2004, 06:22 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
There isn't a 'proper' method in short - RFC 1855 declines to address this.
However it states:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
In other words, the important thing is not whether it is a top or a bottom
post, it's
whether it is a *short* quote. Common sense, however, says that if the
thread starts
off top posted, then it should be continued as such, and vice-versa ( I was
guilty in not doing this as RJ
pointed out).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
However it states:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
In other words, the important thing is not whether it is a top or a bottom
post, it's
whether it is a *short* quote. Common sense, however, says that if the
thread starts
off top posted, then it should be continued as such, and vice-versa ( I was
guilty in not doing this as RJ
pointed out).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
12-06-2004, 06:22 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
There isn't a 'proper' method in short - RFC 1855 declines to address this.
However it states:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
In other words, the important thing is not whether it is a top or a bottom
post, it's
whether it is a *short* quote. Common sense, however, says that if the
thread starts
off top posted, then it should be continued as such, and vice-versa ( I was
guilty in not doing this as RJ
pointed out).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
However it states:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
In other words, the important thing is not whether it is a top or a bottom
post, it's
whether it is a *short* quote. Common sense, however, says that if the
thread starts
off top posted, then it should be continued as such, and vice-versa ( I was
guilty in not doing this as RJ
pointed out).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
12-06-2004, 06:22 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
There isn't a 'proper' method in short - RFC 1855 declines to address this.
However it states:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
In other words, the important thing is not whether it is a top or a bottom
post, it's
whether it is a *short* quote. Common sense, however, says that if the
thread starts
off top posted, then it should be continued as such, and vice-versa ( I was
guilty in not doing this as RJ
pointed out).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
However it states:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
In other words, the important thing is not whether it is a top or a bottom
post, it's
whether it is a *short* quote. Common sense, however, says that if the
thread starts
off top posted, then it should be continued as such, and vice-versa ( I was
guilty in not doing this as RJ
pointed out).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was
> scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's
> the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't
have
> to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip
> un-necessary junk.
12-06-2004, 06:23 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
personally, I agree.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Rusted" <noEmail@please.com> wrote in message
news:7L5td.16456$pR1.4979@fe26.usenetserver.com...
> I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
> re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread... I give one vote
to top posting
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Rusted" <noEmail@please.com> wrote in message
news:7L5td.16456$pR1.4979@fe26.usenetserver.com...
> I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
> re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread... I give one vote
to top posting
12-06-2004, 06:23 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
personally, I agree.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Rusted" <noEmail@please.com> wrote in message
news:7L5td.16456$pR1.4979@fe26.usenetserver.com...
> I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
> re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread... I give one vote
to top posting
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Rusted" <noEmail@please.com> wrote in message
news:7L5td.16456$pR1.4979@fe26.usenetserver.com...
> I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
> re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread... I give one vote
to top posting
12-06-2004, 06:23 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
personally, I agree.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Rusted" <noEmail@please.com> wrote in message
news:7L5td.16456$pR1.4979@fe26.usenetserver.com...
> I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
> re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread... I give one vote
to top posting
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Rusted" <noEmail@please.com> wrote in message
news:7L5td.16456$pR1.4979@fe26.usenetserver.com...
> I agree. I have a memory of greater than 30 seconds, I don't need to
> re-read the thread info EVERY time I look at the thread... I give one vote
to top posting
