Re: Well, they went and did it.



Man, I'm really gonna feel bad if you get carpal tunnel syndrome over this!

Briarroot wrote:
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 ***
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well, they went and did it.
    ... 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. ... 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. ... of my post far below my response, ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Well, they went and did it.
    ... 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. ... 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. ... 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. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Well, they went and did it.
    ... >> posting in nearly all situations and in nearly all forums for the reason ... I know of no group but this one where some people use bottom ... I have to deal easily with 150 emails per ... > of my post far below my response, ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: LW9 in 2006....
    ... I can't post in the forums there at all, and I'm getting no response at all from the webmaster at all. ... emails and locate yours. ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.lightwave)
  • Re: Back to school
    ... ill mannered posting to which I am responding. ... albeit not always the response that I was looking for. ... Ligon to a specific Ligon family in England. ... Jeremy Clarke line--but at one time they had a member in on the ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)