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)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

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)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

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)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

Deffinately post at top, and clean it up if you want, just don't remove
the original, I hate it when I go to look at an answer to a question, but
somebody has clipped the question, the heading looks interesting but I don't
know what it's about without the original post.

"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
>
>

 

Deffinately post at top, and clean it up if you want, just don't remove
the original, I hate it when I go to look at an answer to a question, but
somebody has clipped the question, the heading looks interesting but I don't
know what it's about without the original post.

"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
>
>

 

Deffinately post at top, and clean it up if you want, just don't remove
the original, I hate it when I go to look at an answer to a question, but
somebody has clipped the question, the heading looks interesting but I don't
know what it's about without the original post.

"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
>
>

 

Deffinately post at top, and clean it up if you want, just don't remove
the original, I hate it when I go to look at an answer to a question, but
somebody has clipped the question, the heading looks interesting but I don't
know what it's about without the original post.

"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
>
>

 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Endo wrote:

> 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?

Well, no one really, that's why good bottom-posters trim the quoted
material. Bottom-posting it is a useful technique when one wants to
address specific points in a post. Like this. Top-posting is an
excellent technique for one-word answers.


> Take an example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply
> at the top.

We do this here monthly now, it seems. Some folks are solidly wedded to
top-posting, no matter what. Some to bottom posting, same Rockwell
number. You might notice that some of us are more flexable and follow
what the previous posters have done, and are less likely to rant that
_our_ way is the best and only way -- except to say that it makes it
easier on all the other readers. In any case, rant away, but don't expect
to shift any minds here or elsewhere. Posting styles are close enough to
religious tenents to make no difference.


> 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.

"Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?

 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Endo wrote:

> 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?

Well, no one really, that's why good bottom-posters trim the quoted
material. Bottom-posting it is a useful technique when one wants to
address specific points in a post. Like this. Top-posting is an
excellent technique for one-word answers.


> Take an example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply
> at the top.

We do this here monthly now, it seems. Some folks are solidly wedded to
top-posting, no matter what. Some to bottom posting, same Rockwell
number. You might notice that some of us are more flexable and follow
what the previous posters have done, and are less likely to rant that
_our_ way is the best and only way -- except to say that it makes it
easier on all the other readers. In any case, rant away, but don't expect
to shift any minds here or elsewhere. Posting styles are close enough to
religious tenents to make no difference.


> 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.

"Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?

 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Endo wrote:

> 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?

Well, no one really, that's why good bottom-posters trim the quoted
material. Bottom-posting it is a useful technique when one wants to
address specific points in a post. Like this. Top-posting is an
excellent technique for one-word answers.


> Take an example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply
> at the top.

We do this here monthly now, it seems. Some folks are solidly wedded to
top-posting, no matter what. Some to bottom posting, same Rockwell
number. You might notice that some of us are more flexable and follow
what the previous posters have done, and are less likely to rant that
_our_ way is the best and only way -- except to say that it makes it
easier on all the other readers. In any case, rant away, but don't expect
to shift any minds here or elsewhere. Posting styles are close enough to
religious tenents to make no difference.


> 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.

"Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?