|
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
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 |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
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 |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
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 $0.02, > > Mike > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's |
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
The downside to top posting is people often fail to trim the crap off the
bottom. For someone reading messages one at a time it's not all that big a deal. But for someone reading them in an archive or digest it's a real pain in the ass. It also gets difficult when folks start replying within the text of the message. It becomes really hard to follow the thread of participants when things get mixed up. Like someone quoting it as "From" a given person when it was more like just from that person's reply somewhere else in the thread. For quick and simple replies that don't require addressing points individually I find it's OK to use top posting if you trim the end up a bit to cut down on the .sig and other garbage. -Bill "JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny... > I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's > the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't have > to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip > un-necessary junk. |
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
The downside to top posting is people often fail to trim the crap off the
bottom. For someone reading messages one at a time it's not all that big a deal. But for someone reading them in an archive or digest it's a real pain in the ass. It also gets difficult when folks start replying within the text of the message. It becomes really hard to follow the thread of participants when things get mixed up. Like someone quoting it as "From" a given person when it was more like just from that person's reply somewhere else in the thread. For quick and simple replies that don't require addressing points individually I find it's OK to use top posting if you trim the end up a bit to cut down on the .sig and other garbage. -Bill "JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny... > I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's > the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't have > to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip > un-necessary junk. |
Re: Speaking of "top posting"
The downside to top posting is people often fail to trim the crap off the
bottom. For someone reading messages one at a time it's not all that big a deal. But for someone reading them in an archive or digest it's a real pain in the ass. It also gets difficult when folks start replying within the text of the message. It becomes really hard to follow the thread of participants when things get mixed up. Like someone quoting it as "From" a given person when it was more like just from that person's reply somewhere else in the thread. For quick and simple replies that don't require addressing points individually I find it's OK to use top posting if you trim the end up a bit to cut down on the .sig and other garbage. -Bill "JimG" <jimg@2muchspam.com> wrote in message news:SC5td.6714$kD5.3482@news01.roc.ny... > I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's > the proper method? I have always like the "top post" method so I don't have > to scroll down through junk I have already read, plus I will strip > un-necessary junk. |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
LOL! Figures.
I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh. 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. Mike 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 |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
LOL! Figures.
I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh. 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. Mike 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 |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
LOL! Figures.
I guess it all depends on where one's background in computers is eh. 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. Mike 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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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') |
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') |
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') |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
All the reason to top post, lol.
"Patrick" <patrick@leclone.com> wrote in message news:iCltd.19355$l%5.869822@news20.bellglobal.com. .. > MACINTOSH will bottom post... by default too. > > -- > LE CLONE > > 279 Notre-Dame > Gatineau, Qc > J8P 1K6 > (819) 643-0511 > SANS FRAIS 1 888 643 0511 > NOUVEAU REVENDEUR AUTORISEE SERVICE INTERNET > > patrick@leclone.com > www.leclone.com > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:41B5E157.3885AE32@sympatico.ca... > > 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 $0.02, > > > > Mike > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > Mike Albanese wrote: > > > > > > JimG wrote: > > > > I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and > was > > > > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. > What's > > > > the proper method? > > > > > > I'm mostly a lurker here, but I'm firmly in the bottom-poster camp. If > > > quoted text is properly edited (see above), it doesn't require scrolling > > > by the reader. My computer is on all day, but I'm in and out of Usenet, > > > doing other things. Whenever I finish reading a group, I mark all the > > > messages "read" so that when I return later, only the new messages show > > > up on my screen. Bottom-posting allows me to quickly pick up on where > > > each thread's discussion was headed during my last visit. And since I > > > frequent many other newsgroups during the day, most of which are > > > bottom-posted, I don't want to be switching my style back and forth, or > > > trying to remember which style goes with each group. There is a reason > > > why standards are a Good Thing, even if they are unwritten standards. > > > > > > Many of the "elders" who have been posting on Usenet for years are > > > strong advocates of bottom-posting, and if it's good enough for the > > > folks who got this whole thing started, it's plenty good enough for me. > > > But then, I've always been kind of a stickler for tradition. That's a > > > big reason why I drive a Jeep Wrangler, and why I won't ever be buying > > > any of those new things with Benz-style headlights, etc. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > > > (for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic') > > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
All the reason to top post, lol.
"Patrick" <patrick@leclone.com> wrote in message news:iCltd.19355$l%5.869822@news20.bellglobal.com. .. > MACINTOSH will bottom post... by default too. > > -- > LE CLONE > > 279 Notre-Dame > Gatineau, Qc > J8P 1K6 > (819) 643-0511 > SANS FRAIS 1 888 643 0511 > NOUVEAU REVENDEUR AUTORISEE SERVICE INTERNET > > patrick@leclone.com > www.leclone.com > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:41B5E157.3885AE32@sympatico.ca... > > 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 $0.02, > > > > Mike > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > > > > Mike Albanese wrote: > > > > > > JimG wrote: > > > > I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and > was > > > > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. > What's > > > > the proper method? > > > > > > I'm mostly a lurker here, but I'm firmly in the bottom-poster camp. If > > > quoted text is properly edited (see above), it doesn't require scrolling > > > by the reader. My computer is on all day, but I'm in and out of Usenet, > > > doing other things. Whenever I finish reading a group, I mark all the > > > messages "read" so that when I return later, only the new messages show > > > up on my screen. Bottom-posting allows me to quickly pick up on where > > > each thread's discussion was headed during my last visit. And since I > > > frequent many other newsgroups during the day, most of which are > > > bottom-posted, I don't want to be switching my style back and forth, or > > > trying to remember which style goes with each group. There is a reason > > > why standards are a Good Thing, even if they are unwritten standards. > > > > > > Many of the "elders" who have been posting on Usenet for years are > > > strong advocates of bottom-posting, and if it's good enough for the > > > folks who got this whole thing started, it's plenty good enough for me. > > > But then, I've always been kind of a stickler for tradition. That's a > > > big reason why I drive a Jeep Wrangler, and why I won't ever be buying > > > any of those new things with Benz-style headlights, etc. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > > > (for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic') > > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
All the reason to top post, lol.
"Patrick" <patrick@leclone.com> wrote in message news:iCltd.19355$l%5.869822@news20.bellglobal.com. .. > MACINTOSH will bottom post... by default too. > > -- > LE CLONE > > 279 Notre-Dame > Gatineau, Qc > J8P 1K6 > (819) 643-0511 > SANS FRAIS 1 888 643 0511 > NOUVEAU REVENDEUR AUTORISEE SERVICE INTERNET > > patrick@leclone.com > www.leclone.com > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:41B5E157.3885AE32@sympatico.ca... > > 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 > > > > Mike Albanese wrote: > > > > > > JimG wrote: > > > > I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and > was > > > > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. > What's > > > > the proper method? > > > > > > I'm mostly a lurker here, but I'm firmly in the bottom-poster camp. If > > > quoted text is properly edited (see above), it doesn't require scrolling > > > by the reader. My computer is on all day, but I'm in and out of Usenet, > > > doing other things. Whenever I finish reading a group, I mark all the > > > messages "read" so that when I return later, only the new messages show > > > up on my screen. Bottom-posting allows me to quickly pick up on where > > > each thread's discussion was headed during my last visit. And since I > > > frequent many other newsgroups during the day, most of which are > > > bottom-posted, I don't want to be switching my style back and forth, or > > > trying to remember which style goes with each group. There is a reason > > > why standards are a Good Thing, even if they are unwritten standards. > > > > > > Many of the "elders" who have been posting on Usenet for years are > > > strong advocates of bottom-posting, and if it's good enough for the > > > folks who got this whole thing started, it's plenty good enough for me. > > > But then, I've always been kind of a stickler for tradition. That's a > > > big reason why I drive a Jeep Wrangler, and why I won't ever be buying > > > any of those new things with Benz-style headlights, etc. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > > > (for email address, change 'pacific' to 'atlantic') > > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Given a choice it is top posting for me for all the reasons stated in this
thread. I will bottom post only if I know that I will be vilified if I don't. I consider interleaving a separate method (and I do not consider it to be a form of bottom posting) to be used when responding specifically to certain sentences. I really wish that top posting was the broad norm.... I really become annoyed at scrolling down through all the repetitive gook when I am reading a dozen posts all on the same topic. It gets my scroll finger achy too. What I like is to click on a post, see what new is added, and then decide to reply or move on, just like that. Bam Bam Bam. Tomes "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message news:6xotd.435516$Pl.188217@pd7tw1no... > 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 > > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Given a choice it is top posting for me for all the reasons stated in this
thread. I will bottom post only if I know that I will be vilified if I don't. I consider interleaving a separate method (and I do not consider it to be a form of bottom posting) to be used when responding specifically to certain sentences. I really wish that top posting was the broad norm.... I really become annoyed at scrolling down through all the repetitive gook when I am reading a dozen posts all on the same topic. It gets my scroll finger achy too. What I like is to click on a post, see what new is added, and then decide to reply or move on, just like that. Bam Bam Bam. Tomes "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message news:6xotd.435516$Pl.188217@pd7tw1no... > 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 > > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Given a choice it is top posting for me for all the reasons stated in this
thread. I will bottom post only if I know that I will be vilified if I don't. I consider interleaving a separate method (and I do not consider it to be a form of bottom posting) to be used when responding specifically to certain sentences. I really wish that top posting was the broad norm.... I really become annoyed at scrolling down through all the repetitive gook when I am reading a dozen posts all on the same topic. It gets my scroll finger achy too. What I like is to click on a post, see what new is added, and then decide to reply or move on, just like that. Bam Bam Bam. Tomes "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message news:6xotd.435516$Pl.188217@pd7tw1no... > 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 > > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
JimG says...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's > the proper method? [snip] It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so important as taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to see several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread. -- Dale Beckett |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
JimG says...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's > the proper method? [snip] It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so important as taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to see several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread. -- Dale Beckett |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
JimG says...
> I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was > scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's > the proper method? [snip] It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so important as taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to see several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread. -- Dale Beckett |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Well, in the case of paper towels they pull off from the top (the design
print is a dead give away!) therefore the toilet paper must follow suit. (man I wish I could get my wife to understand that!) JimG "Dale Beckett" wrote in message .... > It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to > toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Well, in the case of paper towels they pull off from the top (the design
print is a dead give away!) therefore the toilet paper must follow suit. (man I wish I could get my wife to understand that!) JimG "Dale Beckett" wrote in message .... > It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to > toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
Well, in the case of paper towels they pull off from the top (the design
print is a dead give away!) therefore the toilet paper must follow suit. (man I wish I could get my wife to understand that!) JimG "Dale Beckett" wrote in message .... > It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to > toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? > |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
That sounds like an analogy on how I view my relationships with women.
Decide if I like em, see if they are new and interesting as opposed to the last, decide whether it's worth any effort and when I'm done, move on. Bam Bam Bam. Maybe that's why I'm single ;p -- griffin '85 Jeep CJ-7 (in storage) '97 Toyota Corolla SD "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2Xqtd.8307$Va5.7139@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > What I like is to click on a post, see what new is added, and then decide to > reply or move on, just like that. Bam Bam Bam. > Tomes |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
That sounds like an analogy on how I view my relationships with women.
Decide if I like em, see if they are new and interesting as opposed to the last, decide whether it's worth any effort and when I'm done, move on. Bam Bam Bam. Maybe that's why I'm single ;p -- griffin '85 Jeep CJ-7 (in storage) '97 Toyota Corolla SD "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2Xqtd.8307$Va5.7139@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > What I like is to click on a post, see what new is added, and then decide to > reply or move on, just like that. Bam Bam Bam. > Tomes |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
That sounds like an analogy on how I view my relationships with women.
Decide if I like em, see if they are new and interesting as opposed to the last, decide whether it's worth any effort and when I'm done, move on. Bam Bam Bam. Maybe that's why I'm single ;p -- griffin '85 Jeep CJ-7 (in storage) '97 Toyota Corolla SD "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2Xqtd.8307$Va5.7139@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > What I like is to click on a post, see what new is added, and then decide to > reply or move on, just like that. Bam Bam Bam. > Tomes |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
JimG says...
> Well, in the case of paper towels they pull off from the top (the design > print is a dead give away!) therefore the toilet paper must follow suit. > (man I wish I could get my wife to understand that!) > > JimG > [snip] LOL! See what I mean? -- Dale Beckett |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
JimG says...
> Well, in the case of paper towels they pull off from the top (the design > print is a dead give away!) therefore the toilet paper must follow suit. > (man I wish I could get my wife to understand that!) > > JimG > [snip] LOL! See what I mean? -- Dale Beckett |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
JimG says...
> Well, in the case of paper towels they pull off from the top (the design > print is a dead give away!) therefore the toilet paper must follow suit. > (man I wish I could get my wife to understand that!) > > JimG > [snip] LOL! See what I mean? -- Dale Beckett |
Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
It has been scientifically proven that women like "under", men like
"over". Pun intended, ducking for cover! Dale Beckett wrote: > JimG says... > >>I go to another NG on occasion to discuss another passion of mine, and was >>scolded for "top posting". That's the way I post here as do most. What's >>the proper method? > > [snip] > > It varies from group to group, and in my unsolicited opinion is similar to > toilet paper rolls..... do they go over, or do they go under? > > Whether you choose to top-post or bottom-post is not nearly so important as > taking a few seconds to TRIM DOWN THE FREAKING QUOTE. Nobody wants to see > several days' worth of quoted material in every post in a thread. > > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands