Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

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.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Mike Romain wrote:
> I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
> 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
> that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
> made up their own way.
>
> I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
> do it.
>
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
>
> My $0.02,
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

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.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Mike Romain wrote:
> I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
> 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
> that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
> made up their own way.
>
> I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
> do it.
>
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
>
> My $0.02,
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

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.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Mike Romain wrote:
> I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
> 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
> that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
> made up their own way.
>
> I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
> do it.
>
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
>
> My $0.02,
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: Speaking of "top posting"
 

The downside to top posting is people often fail to trim the crap off the
bottom.

For someone reading messages one at a time it's not all that big a deal.
But for someone reading them in an archive or digest it's a real pain in the
ass.

It also gets difficult when folks start replying within the text of the
message. It becomes really hard to follow the thread of participants when
things get mixed up. Like someone quoting it as "From" a given person when
it was more like just from that person's reply somewhere else in the thread.

For quick and simple replies that don't require addressing points
individually I find it's OK to use top posting if you trim the end up a bit
to cut down on the .sig and other garbage.

-Bill

"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.

Re: Speaking of "top posting"
 

The downside to top posting is people often fail to trim the crap off the
bottom.

For someone reading messages one at a time it's not all that big a deal.
But for someone reading them in an archive or digest it's a real pain in the
ass.

It also gets difficult when folks start replying within the text of the
message. It becomes really hard to follow the thread of participants when
things get mixed up. Like someone quoting it as "From" a given person when
it was more like just from that person's reply somewhere else in the thread.

For quick and simple replies that don't require addressing points
individually I find it's OK to use top posting if you trim the end up a bit
to cut down on the .sig and other garbage.

-Bill

"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.

Re: Speaking of "top posting"
 

The downside to top posting is people often fail to trim the crap off the
bottom.

For someone reading messages one at a time it's not all that big a deal.
But for someone reading them in an archive or digest it's a real pain in the
ass.

It also gets difficult when folks start replying within the text of the
message. It becomes really hard to follow the thread of participants when
things get mixed up. Like someone quoting it as "From" a given person when
it was more like just from that person's reply somewhere else in the thread.

For quick and simple replies that don't require addressing points
individually I find it's OK to use top posting if you trim the end up a bit
to cut down on the .sig and other garbage.

-Bill

"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.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

LOL! Figures.

I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.

Lee Ayton has it right, follow the norm in the group or that thread. I
try to post that way, if the whole thread is bottom I follow otherwise I
top post here.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
> > 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
> > that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
> > made up their own way.
> >
> > I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
> > do it.
> >
> > Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> > proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> > post.
> >
> > My $0.02,
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

LOL! Figures.

I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.

Lee Ayton has it right, follow the norm in the group or that thread. I
try to post that way, if the whole thread is bottom I follow otherwise I
top post here.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
> > 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
> > that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
> > made up their own way.
> >
> > I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
> > do it.
> >
> > Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> > proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> > post.
> >
> > My $0.02,
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

LOL! Figures.

I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.

Lee Ayton has it right, follow the norm in the group or that thread. I
try to post that way, if the whole thread is bottom I follow otherwise I
top post here.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
> > 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
> > that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
> > made up their own way.
> >
> > I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
> > do it.
> >
> > Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> > proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> > post.
> >
> > My $0.02,
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

Not that my post below has anything to do with Jeeps, but...

Mike frequented different BBSi than I did. The FidoNet echos that I
carried both as Node (1:320/455) (1:327/455) and mail Hub (1:327/400)
uniformly used interleaved bottom posting. Since FidoNet was carried on
the individual system operator's own personal long-distance dime there was
considerable pressure to trim messages to only the relevant material.


On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Steve wrote:

> 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.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> I come from the BBS days and top posting was the way to go. I think the
>> 'old timers' you are talking about were really just internet 'newbies'
>> that jumped on the band wagon so they missed the pre internet days and
>> made up their own way.
>>
>> I think that is one reason there are two schools for the 'proper' way to
>> do it.
>>
>> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
>> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
>> post.
>>
>> My $0.02,
>>
>> Mike
>> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>

--
Some conditions apply. YMMV. This message was packed by weight, not
by volume. TWIAVBP, local variation may occur. Dramatization, not a real
authority. Do not induce vomiting. No user-serviceable words inside.