RANT: Post replies at the top!
07-26-2004, 05:21 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
RANT: Post replies at the top!
Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have to
scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post. Yeesh.
/rant
replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have to
scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post. Yeesh.
/rant
07-26-2004, 06:46 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
07-26-2004, 06:46 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
07-26-2004, 06:46 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
07-26-2004, 06:46 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
bottom post.
I told him he was a moron!!
But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as
you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just
replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do
some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you
had no real opinion!!
Man, ranting is contagious!!
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
07-26-2004, 10:02 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
Most NGs still adhere to that OLD custom of bottom posting, though this
isn't one of them. It's amazing what a sensitive subject it is with
those geriatric retirement home posters. The problem is, they can't
remember from post to post what transpired and have to re-re-re-read
every post, IN ORDER, or they get very confused and resort to name
calling. See Webster's for "Alzheimer's".
SB wrote:
> I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to
> bottom post.
> I told him he was a moron!!
>
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
isn't one of them. It's amazing what a sensitive subject it is with
those geriatric retirement home posters. The problem is, they can't
remember from post to post what transpired and have to re-re-re-read
every post, IN ORDER, or they get very confused and resort to name
calling. See Webster's for "Alzheimer's".
SB wrote:
> I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to
> bottom post.
> I told him he was a moron!!
>
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________