RANT: Post replies at the top!
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
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?
> 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?
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
A: If not done in a timely manner and to an obvious question it can lead to
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
A: If not done in a timely manner and to an obvious question it can lead to
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
A: If not done in a timely manner and to an obvious question it can lead to
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
A: If not done in a timely manner and to an obvious question it can lead to
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
confusion.
"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.
>
On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the
conversation tree.
Note: this is an example of an interspersed 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
Q: What is wrong with top posting?
No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies
sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted
posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom
is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place
over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is
being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts
with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points
have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously
every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your
guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth
and aiding in clarity.
Jeff
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
><snip>
> "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?
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
Actually, your rant is a good one, but apparently violates all usenet
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"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
>
>
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"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
>
>