OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>> established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>> became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>> was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>> their nasty BBS top posting habits.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.
If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>> established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>> became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>> was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>> their nasty BBS top posting habits.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.
If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>> established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>> became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>> was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>> their nasty BBS top posting habits.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.
If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>> established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>> became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>> was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>> their nasty BBS top posting habits.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.
If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations? An I,
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
F. Robert Falbo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>>>established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>>>became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>>>was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>>>their nasty BBS top posting habits.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
F. Robert Falbo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>>>established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>>>became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>>>was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>>>their nasty BBS top posting habits.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations? An I,
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
F. Robert Falbo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>>>established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>>>became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>>>was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>>>their nasty BBS top posting habits.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
F. Robert Falbo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>>>established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>>>became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>>>was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>>>their nasty BBS top posting habits.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations? An I,
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
F. Robert Falbo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>>>established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>>>became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>>>was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>>>their nasty BBS top posting habits.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
F. Robert Falbo wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Usenet, with it's convention of interleaved bottom posting, was well
>>>>established in universities and research facilities by the time BBSs
>>>>became popular with home hobbyists in the early 80s. Bottom posting
>>>>was the defacto Internet standard until PC users invaded en-masse with
>>>>their nasty BBS top posting habits.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:42:27 +0000, RoyJ wrote:
> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?
Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.
> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?
Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.
> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:42:27 +0000, RoyJ wrote:
> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?
Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.
> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?
Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.
> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:42:27 +0000, RoyJ wrote:
> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?
Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.
> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?
Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.
> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.
Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.
--
-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
I find myself wondering how many people use such a reader.....
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WqCdnREVrrSfQivcRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> > Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
> because
> > one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
> >
> > > Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so
important
> as
> > > taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to
> see
> > > several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread.
>
> Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that
defaults
> to scrolling to the bottom of a message.
>
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WqCdnREVrrSfQivcRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> > Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
> because
> > one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
> >
> > > Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so
important
> as
> > > taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to
> see
> > > several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread.
>
> Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that
defaults
> to scrolling to the bottom of a message.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
I find myself wondering how many people use such a reader.....
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WqCdnREVrrSfQivcRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> > Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
> because
> > one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
> >
> > > Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so
important
> as
> > > taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to
> see
> > > several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread.
>
> Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that
defaults
> to scrolling to the bottom of a message.
>
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WqCdnREVrrSfQivcRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> > Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
> because
> > one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
> >
> > > Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so
important
> as
> > > taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to
> see
> > > several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread.
>
> Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that
defaults
> to scrolling to the bottom of a message.
>
