Lon

It violates the older netiquette standards from back when threaded
newsreaders [even plain text style] were still green.

I prefer the netiquette that says if most folks in a group tend to top
post...it is ruder to mixpost than to simply follow the group norm.
And except in strict bottom-post groups, it is rude to make an issue
of it.

CRWLR proclaimed:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

Lon

It violates the older netiquette standards from back when threaded
newsreaders [even plain text style] were still green.

I prefer the netiquette that says if most folks in a group tend to top
post...it is ruder to mixpost than to simply follow the group norm.
And except in strict bottom-post groups, it is rude to make an issue
of it.

CRWLR proclaimed:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

Lon

It violates the older netiquette standards from back when threaded
newsreaders [even plain text style] were still green.

I prefer the netiquette that says if most folks in a group tend to top
post...it is ruder to mixpost than to simply follow the group norm.
And except in strict bottom-post groups, it is rude to make an issue
of it.

CRWLR proclaimed:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

Dave Milne

The bottom line ( top line ?) is that the post should be readable, which
means that snipping is more important than where you put your comments !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.60.0407261004050.9233@panix2.panix .com...
> 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. >

Dave Milne

The bottom line ( top line ?) is that the post should be readable, which
means that snipping is more important than where you put your comments !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.60.0407261004050.9233@panix2.panix .com...
> 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. >

Dave Milne

The bottom line ( top line ?) is that the post should be readable, which
means that snipping is more important than where you put your comments !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.60.0407261004050.9233@panix2.panix .com...
> 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. >

Dave Milne

The bottom line ( top line ?) is that the post should be readable, which
means that snipping is more important than where you put your comments !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.60.0407261004050.9233@panix2.panix .com...
> 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. >

GW De Lacey

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:33:47 -0400, Lee Ayrton wrote:


>We do this here Well, I'm one who are solidly wedded to
>top-posting, no is solidly wedded posting, same Rockwell
>number. You mi to properly trimmed flexable and follow
>what the previ bottom posting, but likely to rant that
>_our_ way is t I can see some say that it makes it
>easier on all advantage to centre rant away, but don't expect
>to shift any posting. les are close enough to
>religious --
> GW De Lacey

(mono spaced font needed)

GW De Lacey

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:33:47 -0400, Lee Ayrton wrote:


>We do this here Well, I'm one who are solidly wedded to
>top-posting, no is solidly wedded posting, same Rockwell
>number. You mi to properly trimmed flexable and follow
>what the previ bottom posting, but likely to rant that
>_our_ way is t I can see some say that it makes it
>easier on all advantage to centre rant away, but don't expect
>to shift any posting. les are close enough to
>religious --
> GW De Lacey

(mono spaced font needed)

GW De Lacey

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:33:47 -0400, Lee Ayrton wrote:


>We do this here Well, I'm one who are solidly wedded to
>top-posting, no is solidly wedded posting, same Rockwell
>number. You mi to properly trimmed flexable and follow
>what the previ bottom posting, but likely to rant that
>_our_ way is t I can see some say that it makes it
>easier on all advantage to centre rant away, but don't expect
>to shift any posting. les are close enough to
>religious --
> GW De Lacey

(mono spaced font needed)