Re: Well, they went and did it.


"Briarroot" <woodsyl@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11oddepdrfsdh13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Skip wrote:
> >
> > Tim, I'm very sure that top posting is far more common than bottom
> > posting in nearly all situations and in nearly all forums for the reason
> > I stated.
>
> You're very sure, and you're also very wrong.
>
>
> > That is, to save effort in paging down.
>
> Effort? Oh, my god! Are you enfeebled? Is it some sort of disease?
>
>
> > In fact, I know of no group but this one where some people use bottom
posting.
>
> Which clearly demonstrates that you are indeed the proverbial Clueless
> Newbie.
>
>
> > People want to maintain the continuity of a thread so that the latest
post
> > is all that is needed to get the entire conversation on a particular
branch.
>
> Patently ridiculous. Most threads evolve and branch in several
> different directions. The Tower of Babble displayed better organization
> than the typical UseNet thread. The *proper* and *accepted* practice is
> to quote only to those portions of a post to which you wish to respond,
> and to insert your responses *below* each section so as to maintain a
> logical flow of expression. Of course, this *does* require some effort.
> Perhaps you aren't up to it.
>
>
> > That being the case, it would be considered extremely impolite to delete
> > content from the thread.
>
> As I said above: you're clueless.
>
>
> > If content is to be preserved, replies get long. If replies get long,
> people are
> >inconvenienced by being forced to page to the bottom.
>
> It would be the height of absurdity to repost every single post in each
> new message in a thread! The suggestion is so far beyond reasonable,
> it's just plain silly.
>
>
> > No one in a corporate environment would ever care how long an email
got.
> > CYA is paramount, and content must be preserved if one is to prove
later
> > on how a situation or email exchange really unfolded. I am a corporate
whore,
> > so I have adopted the corporate paradigm. It makes sense, besides, so
all
> > logical people would naturally do the same.
>
> ROTFLMAO! So what you're really saying is that you've become accustomed
> to dealing with the lowest form of intelligent life on earth, and you'd
> like to utilize the habits you've acquired from that experience.
> Foolishness like covering one's ass may be the norm where you work, but
> UseNet discussion forums are so dissimilar that one can hardly conceive
> of anything *less* alike. I would never have believed that anyone would
> trot out such a claim in support of top-posting unless I'd seen it with
> my own eyes! I'm saving this bit for future reference. It'll ignite
> peals of laughter wherever I post it - from now 'till doomsday!
>
>
> > The only people who care about long posts or who insist on text posts
> > rather than HTML posts are those who access old-style internet forums
> > from a dialup modem. That is the past. Ancient history. Those people
> > can suffer with long downloads, as far as I am concerned. I have no
> > mercy, and no regard for them. There are text message listserver groups
> > that were started in the early 1990's for such stick-in-the-mud people
> > who are hopelessly mired in ancient technology, or who refuse to get
> > with the program and come into the modern world. This is the
> > information age, Tim. Overload is the norm, not the exception.
>
> Good grief, not this tired old canard again! Here's a clue for you
> Skip, this *is* an old-style internet forum, and many of us *do* use
> dial-up access to the internet. So what? Most of what I do online,
> aside from reading a few emails each day, is reading and posting to
> UseNet newsgroups, where plain text is not only the norm but required.
> The "get with the modern world" idea is just childish simple-mindedness.
> Newer does *not* automatically mean better, nor do newsgroups require
> any modernization. They're just fine as they are and continue to serve
> us well. Text = instant communication and that's what newsgroups are
> all about. If you want the entertainment value of HTML (though why
> anyone *would* want that is beyond me) then there are numerous web-based
> forums for you to choose from, including several for pipe smokers and
> collectors.
>
> Since there are no rules in the alt.* hierarchy you can post any way you
> please, but don't try to make out that you've somehow discovered that
> you're wiser, more clever and more "modern" than those who've come
> before you and laid the foundations for what you now dismiss so
cavalierly.
>
>
> > Top posting makes more sense in the corporate environment where people
> > routinely deal with 80 to 150 or more interdepartmental emails per day.
> > I am a VP at my company. I have to deal easily with 150 emails per
> > day at work. Furthermore, in large corporate environments where CYA
> > comes into play, you need to preserve all previous comments so you can
> > prove at later dates that you notified the right parties at the right
> > time and they were the ones who dropped the ball, and not you. Why,
> > some emails get so long, that MS Outlook (the corporate standard email
> > system) has to indent the very earliest posts so much that all words are
> > broken into single letters streamed top to bottom in unreadably long
> > comet trail lines. It can be fascinating to read, you know.
>
> LOL! I've no doubt that the meandering threads in corporate emails make
> fascinating reading for those with nothing better to do such as the
> average corporate drone, but in any case, this is *not* a corporate
> environment (whatever that may be), it's a newsgroup and there is
> absolutely no need to "preserve all previous comments" in each post.
> The idea is utter foolishness!
>
>
> > Bottom posting is stupid. If I cared to spend the effort, I'd write a
> > little macro to rearrange all posts to the standard method of top
> > posting. It is the standard method, and the logical one, you know, and
> > if you think differently, you're just wrong. Oh well. But I don't want
> > to waste my time. I can sort out a post very easily regardless of
> > whether multiple respondents to the thread post on the top or on the
> > bottom.
>
> Bottom posting has been the *standard* method, apparently since before
> you were born, (which if I judge correctly, was sometime last week).
> Top-posting is merely a convenience for those who either don't
> understand how, or don't care to learn how, to properly configure their
> news reader software; or indeed for the perpetual children among us who
> feel the need to establish their 'identity' regardless of tradition. I
> have seen many arguments come and go over this issue, but yours is the
> first that ever claimed that top-posting was more "logical!" <hoots of
> derision!>
>
> Bottom posting wasn't handed down from on high by some august body of
> rule makers, it evolved with the net and is the practical result of
> years of activity on groups such as this one, for the simple reason that
> it helps prevent misunderstanding and promotes clear communication. You
> may disdain such qualities of discussion in favor of the your preferred
> flavor of the day if you wish. That's up to you, but your claims to the
> supremacy of top-posting are simply wrong.
>
>
> > OK, I admit I'm over the top and I'm exaggerating a little.
>
> Only a little? Sheesh!
>
>
> > But your attitude really annoyed me. What attitude, you say? It's the
officious
> > and pompous presumption that top posting must be "corrected", and the
> > fact that you don't just do it because it suits you, you do it and feel
> > it necessary to rub it in the logical top-poster's face.
>
> LOL! You may be overly sensitive! I added my post-script at the bottom
> of my post far below my response, even below my signature line. I did
> so in order to make clear that I was rearranging your post in order to
> avoid confusion. I did not do it to embarrass you or to indicate that
> you were in violation of some rule. If I *were* the officious and
> pompous type I would have been much more up front and in your face. I
> would also jump on each and every top-poster on ASP, but for the most
> part, I *don't care* how people post. It's your business, not mine. So
> Skip, if you want to appear stupid or clueless or just simply careless,
> that's entirely up to you. When I respond to a top-posted message,
> especially one that is in response to a previous post, I typically have
> to rearrange the text so that my answers to each individual section flow
> together from first post to first response to second post. It's not my
> fault if you've chosen to take offense, nor is it my responsibility to
> prevent you from becoming publicly embarrassed. You've chosen your own
> path, so live it!
>
>
> > Why? Are you a pedagogue?
>
> Are you nuts? Judging from the evidence of the post to which I'm
> responding, I'd have to say that *something* is wrong with you. I don't
> know what it may be, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
> conclude that you're just having a bad day. But my benevolence *does*
> have it's limits. You have been warned!
>
>
> > Are you so sure that you are "right", and have the right
> > to dictate to others how they should post on a forum?
>
> I made no mention of how you should post, until *after* you asked me
> about it. I certainly made no attempt to "dictate" how you should post.
> If you hadn't asked, nothing would have been said. Apparently you
> failed to read the page whose URL I supplied. It contains a brief
> history of UseNet and an explanation of common conventions. If I were
> momentarily to adopt your attitude, I would now ask you if you are
> trying to dictate to me in order to prevent me from adding the
> appropriate post-scripts to my messages because they offend you.
> Fortunately, I am not you!
>
>
> > Yeah, what really gets to me is your attitude. *** top posting
corrected ***
> > you say, as though it were an error, an error mind you, and not a
matter of
> > preference.
>
> I've already explained that, though if your post is any indication, that
> explanation may well be beyond your powers of comprehension.
>
>
> > Get real and get a life. I have decided that I will always
> > top post, because that is what I like. "Correct" if you will. It's
> > your wasted effort, not mine.
>
> You sound just like a child throwing a temper tantrum. How illustrative!
>
>
> > "corrected" - screw that. Get the stick out of your ass.
>
> Leave my ass out of this and keep your mind out of my pants, thanks. I
> mean, whatever you're into is your own affair. Far be it for me to
> criticize about your chosen lifestyle, even obliquely; but my ass is off
> limits!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Parker ... Heritage in a Barling square-shank billiard
>
>
> *** top-posting corrected ***

no won morf tsop sdrawkcab ll'I kniht I

1detlik


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] unsubscription
    ... > Asking a question and, maybe, getting a helpful response. ... > concerning any subject matter including top posting. ... someone went out of their way to specifically and only to "tisk tisk" me. ... > CONVENTION of bottom posting with trimming. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: **Posting FAQ - New posters, please read**
    ... "Top posting" is the practice of quoting the entire expletive-deleted ... expletive-deleted thread and tacking on a reply at the bottom. ... is the required format in at least two newsgroups. ... "Quote and response posting" is the practice of trimming a post down ...
    (alt.sewing)
  • Re: Top posting
    ... > mailing list, if they tell me to bottom post, I bottom post. ... all those involved in proprietary software. ... I prefer inline posting. ... By the definition of top-posting, ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Hey, how about that. Tire inflation/tuneups same results as drilling.
    ... You're top posting again. ... complain that you bottom post. ... from anyone to one of your bottom posts so chastising you. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Newsgroup reading question
    ... insist on bottom posting. ... If you post a response then you have already read ... who have weirdos who insist on bottom posts. ... I don't know of any newsreader that does that. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)