OT: Speaking of "top posting"
12-07-2004, 01:54 PM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
12-07-2004, 01:54 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
12-07-2004, 01:56 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
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 was thinking of groups like alt.sys.pdp10 or alt.folklore.computers
where a good smattering of academics and industry old-timers hang out.
People who worked on or around the technologies that would become the
internet we have today. Not unusual to have notables such as Dennis
Ritchie (Unix) drop by. They all seem to bottom-post.
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
Not sure with Netscape, but Mozilla (the code which eventually goes into
Netscape) defaults to bottom-post. To me, it seemed that top-posting
really took off with the advent of Outlook Express. There have been so
many opinions on this over the years, that I guess you either subscribe
to "When in Rome..." or "Death to ___-Posters!", depending on your
personal level of zeal :-)
Mike
--
(for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic')
> 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 was thinking of groups like alt.sys.pdp10 or alt.folklore.computers
where a good smattering of academics and industry old-timers hang out.
People who worked on or around the technologies that would become the
internet we have today. Not unusual to have notables such as Dennis
Ritchie (Unix) drop by. They all seem to bottom-post.
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
Not sure with Netscape, but Mozilla (the code which eventually goes into
Netscape) defaults to bottom-post. To me, it seemed that top-posting
really took off with the advent of Outlook Express. There have been so
many opinions on this over the years, that I guess you either subscribe
to "When in Rome..." or "Death to ___-Posters!", depending on your
personal level of zeal :-)
Mike
--
(for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic')
12-07-2004, 01:56 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
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 was thinking of groups like alt.sys.pdp10 or alt.folklore.computers
where a good smattering of academics and industry old-timers hang out.
People who worked on or around the technologies that would become the
internet we have today. Not unusual to have notables such as Dennis
Ritchie (Unix) drop by. They all seem to bottom-post.
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
Not sure with Netscape, but Mozilla (the code which eventually goes into
Netscape) defaults to bottom-post. To me, it seemed that top-posting
really took off with the advent of Outlook Express. There have been so
many opinions on this over the years, that I guess you either subscribe
to "When in Rome..." or "Death to ___-Posters!", depending on your
personal level of zeal :-)
Mike
--
(for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic')
> 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 was thinking of groups like alt.sys.pdp10 or alt.folklore.computers
where a good smattering of academics and industry old-timers hang out.
People who worked on or around the technologies that would become the
internet we have today. Not unusual to have notables such as Dennis
Ritchie (Unix) drop by. They all seem to bottom-post.
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
Not sure with Netscape, but Mozilla (the code which eventually goes into
Netscape) defaults to bottom-post. To me, it seemed that top-posting
really took off with the advent of Outlook Express. There have been so
many opinions on this over the years, that I guess you either subscribe
to "When in Rome..." or "Death to ___-Posters!", depending on your
personal level of zeal :-)
Mike
--
(for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic')
12-07-2004, 01:56 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
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 was thinking of groups like alt.sys.pdp10 or alt.folklore.computers
where a good smattering of academics and industry old-timers hang out.
People who worked on or around the technologies that would become the
internet we have today. Not unusual to have notables such as Dennis
Ritchie (Unix) drop by. They all seem to bottom-post.
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
Not sure with Netscape, but Mozilla (the code which eventually goes into
Netscape) defaults to bottom-post. To me, it seemed that top-posting
really took off with the advent of Outlook Express. There have been so
many opinions on this over the years, that I guess you either subscribe
to "When in Rome..." or "Death to ___-Posters!", depending on your
personal level of zeal :-)
Mike
--
(for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic')
> 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 was thinking of groups like alt.sys.pdp10 or alt.folklore.computers
where a good smattering of academics and industry old-timers hang out.
People who worked on or around the technologies that would become the
internet we have today. Not unusual to have notables such as Dennis
Ritchie (Unix) drop by. They all seem to bottom-post.
> Even take the commercial newsreaders like Netscape, they default to
> proper top posting, you have to muck around with settings to bottom
> post.
Not sure with Netscape, but Mozilla (the code which eventually goes into
Netscape) defaults to bottom-post. To me, it seemed that top-posting
really took off with the advent of Outlook Express. There have been so
many opinions on this over the years, that I guess you either subscribe
to "When in Rome..." or "Death to ___-Posters!", depending on your
personal level of zeal :-)
Mike
--
(for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic')
12-07-2004, 02:55 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
Me three.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
HomeBrewer wrote:
>
> Just one more reason to like this NG - Top post is ok here - no one has
> acted like a jerk like they do in other NGs about it. I like top posting
> better too.
> --
> _____________________
> HomeBrewer
> 76-81-85CJ7
> http://85cj7.blogspot.com/
> All in one Jeep
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
HomeBrewer wrote:
>
> Just one more reason to like this NG - Top post is ok here - no one has
> acted like a jerk like they do in other NGs about it. I like top posting
> better too.
> --
> _____________________
> HomeBrewer
> 76-81-85CJ7
> http://85cj7.blogspot.com/
> All in one Jeep
12-07-2004, 02:55 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
Me three.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
HomeBrewer wrote:
>
> Just one more reason to like this NG - Top post is ok here - no one has
> acted like a jerk like they do in other NGs about it. I like top posting
> better too.
> --
> _____________________
> HomeBrewer
> 76-81-85CJ7
> http://85cj7.blogspot.com/
> All in one Jeep
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
HomeBrewer wrote:
>
> Just one more reason to like this NG - Top post is ok here - no one has
> acted like a jerk like they do in other NGs about it. I like top posting
> better too.
> --
> _____________________
> HomeBrewer
> 76-81-85CJ7
> http://85cj7.blogspot.com/
> All in one Jeep
12-07-2004, 02:55 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
Me three.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
HomeBrewer wrote:
>
> Just one more reason to like this NG - Top post is ok here - no one has
> acted like a jerk like they do in other NGs about it. I like top posting
> better too.
> --
> _____________________
> HomeBrewer
> 76-81-85CJ7
> http://85cj7.blogspot.com/
> All in one Jeep
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
HomeBrewer wrote:
>
> Just one more reason to like this NG - Top post is ok here - no one has
> acted like a jerk like they do in other NGs about it. I like top posting
> better too.
> --
> _____________________
> HomeBrewer
> 76-81-85CJ7
> http://85cj7.blogspot.com/
> All in one Jeep
12-07-2004, 03:38 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
I've been on a plethora of different type boards for many years and the norm
is usually:
1. Top post for a general reply. Most boards/programs default to top-posting
as it creates a chronological sequence of posts from new to old. This is A
LOT more convenient in the elder days when scrolling wasn't as easy as
clicking a mouse button.
2. Only bottom post exclusively if replying to numerous bits of information,
generally from multiplie posters being quoted, whereby it makes
understanding your reply easier by following the previous posts in order.
Again, lots of appropriate snipping is important.
3. Bottom posting is preferred only when used INCLUSIVE to a previous post.
For example, scroll down a tad and I'll use an example within Mike's post.
And I guess now-a-days, as was said, do what everyone else is doing. So long
as people snip accordingly, with the new point-and-click GUI's, it doesn't
really matter in the end.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41B5F821.15EC1727@sympatico.ca...
> LOL! Figures.
>
> I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.
Example of inclusive bottom-posting.
> 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.
Yes, I agree.
> Mike
Mike Smells! ;p
--
griffin
'85 Jeep CJ-7
'97 Toyota Corolla SD
is usually:
1. Top post for a general reply. Most boards/programs default to top-posting
as it creates a chronological sequence of posts from new to old. This is A
LOT more convenient in the elder days when scrolling wasn't as easy as
clicking a mouse button.
2. Only bottom post exclusively if replying to numerous bits of information,
generally from multiplie posters being quoted, whereby it makes
understanding your reply easier by following the previous posts in order.
Again, lots of appropriate snipping is important.
3. Bottom posting is preferred only when used INCLUSIVE to a previous post.
For example, scroll down a tad and I'll use an example within Mike's post.
And I guess now-a-days, as was said, do what everyone else is doing. So long
as people snip accordingly, with the new point-and-click GUI's, it doesn't
really matter in the end.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41B5F821.15EC1727@sympatico.ca...
> LOL! Figures.
>
> I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.
Example of inclusive bottom-posting.
> 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.
Yes, I agree.
> Mike
Mike Smells! ;p
--
griffin
'85 Jeep CJ-7
'97 Toyota Corolla SD
12-07-2004, 03:38 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
I've been on a plethora of different type boards for many years and the norm
is usually:
1. Top post for a general reply. Most boards/programs default to top-posting
as it creates a chronological sequence of posts from new to old. This is A
LOT more convenient in the elder days when scrolling wasn't as easy as
clicking a mouse button.
2. Only bottom post exclusively if replying to numerous bits of information,
generally from multiplie posters being quoted, whereby it makes
understanding your reply easier by following the previous posts in order.
Again, lots of appropriate snipping is important.
3. Bottom posting is preferred only when used INCLUSIVE to a previous post.
For example, scroll down a tad and I'll use an example within Mike's post.
And I guess now-a-days, as was said, do what everyone else is doing. So long
as people snip accordingly, with the new point-and-click GUI's, it doesn't
really matter in the end.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41B5F821.15EC1727@sympatico.ca...
> LOL! Figures.
>
> I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.
Example of inclusive bottom-posting.
> 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.
Yes, I agree.
> Mike
Mike Smells! ;p
--
griffin
'85 Jeep CJ-7
'97 Toyota Corolla SD
is usually:
1. Top post for a general reply. Most boards/programs default to top-posting
as it creates a chronological sequence of posts from new to old. This is A
LOT more convenient in the elder days when scrolling wasn't as easy as
clicking a mouse button.
2. Only bottom post exclusively if replying to numerous bits of information,
generally from multiplie posters being quoted, whereby it makes
understanding your reply easier by following the previous posts in order.
Again, lots of appropriate snipping is important.
3. Bottom posting is preferred only when used INCLUSIVE to a previous post.
For example, scroll down a tad and I'll use an example within Mike's post.
And I guess now-a-days, as was said, do what everyone else is doing. So long
as people snip accordingly, with the new point-and-click GUI's, it doesn't
really matter in the end.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41B5F821.15EC1727@sympatico.ca...
> LOL! Figures.
>
> I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh.
Example of inclusive bottom-posting.
> 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.
Yes, I agree.
> Mike
Mike Smells! ;p
--
griffin
'85 Jeep CJ-7
'97 Toyota Corolla SD