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.
>
>

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.
>
>

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

That's pretty good. Too funny. But I can certainly see the analogy.

"griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Rcstd.456354$nl.270137@pd7tw3no...
> That sounds like an analogy on how I view my relationships with women.
> Decide if I like em, see if they are new and interesting as opposed to the
> last, decide whether it's worth any effort and when I'm done, move on. Bam
> Bam Bam. Maybe that's why I'm single ;p
>
> --
> griffin
> '85 Jeep CJ-7 (in storage)
> '97 Toyota Corolla SD
>
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2Xqtd.8307$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's pretty good. Too funny. But I can certainly see the analogy.

"griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Rcstd.456354$nl.270137@pd7tw3no...
> That sounds like an analogy on how I view my relationships with women.
> Decide if I like em, see if they are new and interesting as opposed to the
> last, decide whether it's worth any effort and when I'm done, move on. Bam
> Bam Bam. Maybe that's why I'm single ;p
>
> --
> griffin
> '85 Jeep CJ-7 (in storage)
> '97 Toyota Corolla SD
>
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2Xqtd.8307$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's pretty good. Too funny. But I can certainly see the analogy.

"griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Rcstd.456354$nl.270137@pd7tw3no...
> That sounds like an analogy on how I view my relationships with women.
> Decide if I like em, see if they are new and interesting as opposed to the
> last, decide whether it's worth any effort and when I'm done, move on. Bam
> Bam Bam. Maybe that's why I'm single ;p
>
> --
> griffin
> '85 Jeep CJ-7 (in storage)
> '97 Toyota Corolla SD
>
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2Xqtd.8307$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"
 

Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter because
one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.

"Dale Beckett" <dale@NOT.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2014a13c3b31be9896fe@news.east.earthlin k.net....
> 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"
 

Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter because
one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.

"Dale Beckett" <dale@NOT.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2014a13c3b31be9896fe@news.east.earthlin k.net....
> 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"
 

Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter because
one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.

"Dale Beckett" <dale@NOT.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2014a13c3b31be9896fe@news.east.earthlin k.net....
> 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"
 

"Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
because
> one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
>
> > 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.

Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that defaults
to scrolling to the bottom of a message.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

"Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
because
> one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
>
> > 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.

Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that defaults
to scrolling to the bottom of a message.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

"Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
because
> one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
>
> > 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.

Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that defaults
to scrolling to the bottom of a message.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

Top posting is great, but PLEASE SNIP! I hate long threads where people
quote the whole thing every post, and gets several pages long for one
message.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

Top posting is great, but PLEASE SNIP! I hate long threads where people
quote the whole thing every post, and gets several pages long for one
message.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

Top posting is great, but PLEASE SNIP! I hate long threads where people
quote the whole thing every post, and gets several pages long for one
message.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

The proper method is courtesy and common sense. If you lurk in a
group for a while, you'll quickly notice those where top and or
bottom posting is a religion, where it is merely the norm, or where
random posting is more the trend. Basically if you are following
up where someone else has already top posted, it is rude to bottom
post and versa vice, In My Non Humble Opinion.


JimG proclaimed:

> 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"
 

The proper method is courtesy and common sense. If you lurk in a
group for a while, you'll quickly notice those where top and or
bottom posting is a religion, where it is merely the norm, or where
random posting is more the trend. Basically if you are following
up where someone else has already top posted, it is rude to bottom
post and versa vice, In My Non Humble Opinion.


JimG proclaimed:

> 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"
 

The proper method is courtesy and common sense. If you lurk in a
group for a while, you'll quickly notice those where top and or
bottom posting is a religion, where it is merely the norm, or where
random posting is more the trend. Basically if you are following
up where someone else has already top posted, it is rude to bottom
post and versa vice, In My Non Humble Opinion.


JimG proclaimed:

> 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"
 

... its *always* September now.

Steve proclaimed:

> 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"
 

... its *always* September now.

Steve proclaimed:

> 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"
 

... its *always* September now.

Steve proclaimed:

> 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"
 

Another question. I use agent and even when I top post it sticks my
signature at the bottom . I've yet to figure out how to change this.
Anyone out there know how to fix?



Joe Carroll
2K-TJ

There are some simple truths...And the dogs know what they are."
Joseph Duemer

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

Another question. I use agent and even when I top post it sticks my
signature at the bottom . I've yet to figure out how to change this.
Anyone out there know how to fix?



Joe Carroll
2K-TJ

There are some simple truths...And the dogs know what they are."
Joseph Duemer

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

Another question. I use agent and even when I top post it sticks my
signature at the bottom . I've yet to figure out how to change this.
Anyone out there know how to fix?



Joe Carroll
2K-TJ

There are some simple truths...And the dogs know what they are."
Joseph Duemer

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

LOL. Frosh week forever.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Lon wrote:
> ... its *always* September now.
>
> Steve proclaimed:
>
>> 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

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

LOL. Frosh week forever.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Lon wrote:
> ... its *always* September now.
>
> Steve proclaimed:
>
>> 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

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

LOL. Frosh week forever.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Lon wrote:
> ... its *always* September now.
>
> Steve proclaimed:
>
>> 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

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:16:09 +0000, Joe Carroll wrote:

> Another question. I use agent and even when I top post it sticks my
> signature at the bottom . I've yet to figure out how to change this.
> Anyone out there know how to fix?

Yeah,... post correctly...at the bottom. Forte is trying to tell you
to post the correct way but they're too nice to bitch you out.

BTW, Agent continues to fail the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval"

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:16:09 +0000, Joe Carroll wrote:

> Another question. I use agent and even when I top post it sticks my
> signature at the bottom . I've yet to figure out how to change this.
> Anyone out there know how to fix?

Yeah,... post correctly...at the bottom. Forte is trying to tell you
to post the correct way but they're too nice to bitch you out.

BTW, Agent continues to fail the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval"

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:16:09 +0000, Joe Carroll wrote:

> Another question. I use agent and even when I top post it sticks my
> signature at the bottom . I've yet to figure out how to change this.
> Anyone out there know how to fix?

Yeah,... post correctly...at the bottom. Forte is trying to tell you
to post the correct way but they're too nice to bitch you out.

BTW, Agent continues to fail the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval"

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:

>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> 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.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.

What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.

If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html


--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:

>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> 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.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.

What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.

If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html


--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:

>> Steve proclaimed:
>>
>>> 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.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.

What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
"standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
many viruses.

If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html


--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations? An I,
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.

F. Robert Falbo wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations? An I,
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.

F. Robert Falbo wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations? An I,
for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.

F. Robert Falbo wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:36:13 +0000, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>Steve proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that BBS forums encouraged top-posting.
> Most Moderators in the groups I frequented were very strict as to how you
> posted, and bottom-posting and heavy editing were the norm.
>
> What I've seen in Usenet is an influx of "Newbes" in the 90's when
> Microsoft realized that there was a whole new territory they could invade
> and screw up with their poorly written programs that didn't adhere to any
> "standards" but their own. That's why we have so much top-posting and so
> many viruses.
>
> If you want a newsreader that adheres to the "Good Net-Keeping Seal of
> Approval" (GNKSA), go here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html
>
>

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:42:27 +0000, RoyJ wrote:

> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?

Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.

> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.

Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.


--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:42:27 +0000, RoyJ wrote:

> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?

Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.

> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.

Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.


--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:42:27 +0000, RoyJ wrote:

> And just how did you get from top posting to virus infestations?

Just an added "feature" of Micro$oft's sloppy written programs & OS's.
It goes hand & hand with their sloppy support of existing "standards",
and it permeates many of their "users" thinking. We wouldn't be
having this discussion if Micro$oft respected existing standards.

> And I, for one, think bottom posting is a RPITA.

Posting correctly takes a bit more actual work & thought - because
it forces you to edit out the unnecessary trash to leave only the
item you are supposedly replying to. If it's done right, someone
can jump in and easily follow the discussion without wondering what
the heck is being said.


--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

I find myself wondering how many people use such a reader.....

"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WqCdnREVrrSfQivcRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> > Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
> because
> > one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that
defaults
> to scrolling to the bottom of a message.
>

Re: OT: Speaking of "top posting"
 

I find myself wondering how many people use such a reader.....

"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WqCdnREVrrSfQivcRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> "Tomes" <XXtomanml@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BGvtd.10682$714.4848@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> > Yeah, but if you top post trimming the length does not really matter
> because
> > one reads the top and then moves on to the nest post, no problem.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Uh yeah it DOES matter to the folks that AREN'T using a reader that
defaults
> to scrolling to the bottom of a message.
>