Re: OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting vs. bottom posting


"Bill Lee"

Snip

> George - you seem to have just agreed with me by you inserting your
> comments into a quoted article: an inline quoted posting. Was this a
> mistake?

No, it isn't a mistake. It's a reasonable way to post on some occasions...
rather than blindly bottom posting as many do. It is especially useful when
used in a topic in which there are many thoughts to express.

> In the post that you responded to, I had said that I was giving the
> reasons why people should trim the text they are replying to and you
> said:
>
>> (according to Bill and Larry)

Larry is no longer here.

> Well, it's actually Bill, Larry, RFC1855, and the general netiquette of
> Usenet. You saying that it is 'Bill and Larry' appears to be an attempt
> to paint us as the odd people out in desiring this trimming - it is not.
> There is even a Wikipedia article on top posting [2][4].

I referred to you two as examples of some who imagine themselves playing the
role of net cop.

>> (I don't share your certainty that your way is more efficient, given the
>> evolution that has happened in usenet habits recently)

> I'm wondering what this evolution that you mention might be. Is it:
> a) The Endless September[1]?
> b) The destruction of so many newsgroups by spammers and spamming?
> c) The advent of sporge?
> d) The advent of cancel wars?
> e) the move to web blogs and forums for many users, and the general
> demise of moderated groups?

It's none of the above. It's the fact that so many bottom post one liners
to long posts as to make following an otherwise interesting thread tedious.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to express myself in a manner you can
understand.

Snip

> Could you give me a few examples where it's OK to drive on the left side
> of a two-way public road in the USA? What are the normal consequences of
> not doing so on a highway? In fact I deliberately did not choose the
> 'driving on the wrong side of the road' example since the consequences
> of driving like this are drastic and abrupt, unlike Usenet, where you
> will not die, become injured, or lose money because you choose not to
> follow RFC1855.

It's becoming tiresome answering your questions that bring up what I never
said.

I never said "public road" nor "highway". An example of where the drive on
the right rule does not apply is in most any quarry. The reason is that the
ramps for climbing up are usually clockwise. The climbing vehicle is on the
side that allows backing into a wall to stop in the event of a problem,
rather than over an unprotected edge. The decending vehicle is under no
such danger and therefore drives on the left. The drive on the left applies
to all vehicles anywhere in the quarry. I have no idea why the ramps are so
constructed. Maybe you can do a search to turn up some arcane rule to clear
it up.

>> ( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you
>> imagine
>> have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote?
>
> What percentage of posters know all the local, county, state and federal
> laws they have to abide by? Is this ever treated as an excuse in law?

Yes, it certainly is. That is, here in the real world.

snip

>> Of those, what percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have
>> been arrested for
>> violating it?
>
> I have no idea, just as you have no idea of how many people agree with
> all the laws you are subject to where you live. At the moment, no one I
> know has been arrested for ignoring RFC1855. Some people have lost
> posting privileges on certain servers for having done so - so its a
> minor form of Usenet death.
>
> Just because they don't know any better does not make it right (IMHO).
> Didn't your parents ever say to you, "If all your friends jumped off a
> cliff, would you jump off too?"

Top posting cannot be compared to "jumping off a cliff", since there are
benefits to top posting.

>> (... I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the
>> top.)
>
> Just like there are others who prefer to see For Sale advertisements in
> newsgroups whose charter specifically bans them - you may not agree with
> it but it may be better to abide by the conventions. Without people
> abiding by RFC1855, we may as well just have one massive newsgroup
> called usenet, where everyone posts anything they like - where there are
> absolutely no rules what you should post or not post. I don't think you
> believe that there should be no rules, I think you disagree with a
> subset of the ones generally recommended.

As a moderator I regularly delete posts that violate posted rules. Why do
you imagine otherwise?

>> On usenet I read only those
>> threads that interest me...

> Which indicates you are very focussed in which threads you read and pay
> close attention to the evolving threads that have come from a root
> thread. I tend to read about 30 newsgroups and scan hundreds of articles.

It's no mystery to me why you have trouble keeping posts in context. Would
you like some sound advice?

>> ... so I have time to spend on the mail lists and large
>> bulletin boards that I moderate. That's why I object to wasting time
>> scrolling to find what someone has to say when it could be politely added
>> to
>> the top.)
>
> I put it to you that there are significant differences between email,
> web forums and Usenet. The way that messages propagate and the way they
> are put to the reader are different. On email, I favour top posting with
> appropriate trimming. On web forums with threading, I favour unquoted
> replies. On web forums without threading, I favour selected quotes with
> replies. On Usenet, it should be inline posting with trimmed and
> paraphrased quotes. Sometimes these general rules have to be broken, but
> they remain useful defaults to me.
>
> Presumably, as bulletin board moderator, there is a Netiquette
> associated with people posting to your bulletin boards (are these
> bulletin boards, or are they web forums?) If the a sizable minority
> decided that parts of your Netiquette rules were invalid (because "times
> have changed"), then would this be acceptable? Let us say that they have
> now decided that swearing in their messages was now OK - what would you
> do and what should you do? What would you do if you had no power to stop
> them swearing?

Bill... you're grasping! Certainly you can figure out that I would ban such
posters, just as I would ban those who bottom post one liners to lengthy
quotes, if it were an option.

>> (certainly not! That's when I scroll, to go deep enough to find context
>> if
>> I don't remember it from the post being replied to.)
>
> Are you saying that you should fully quote the article you are
> responding to after your reply?

No

>One of the other issues I have with this
> is the extra bandwidth this takes up[4]. Not everyone who is going to
> read your postings is going to have fast broadband access, or even
> access to a fast usenet server. You might be OK, but it's not you you
> that you need to keep in mind as the target audience - it's everyone out
> there reading usenet.

Did I ever tell you I'm on a VERY slow dial up connection? I pray every day
that my phone company will move up to the 21st century. You assume WAY too
much... it's getting in the way of your understanding.

>> (I'm using IE, so mine works the same way. On this point we agree.
>> That's
>> why I think top posting is better than bottom posting.)
>
> I think we can both agree that bottom posting with full quoting is the
> worst way of posting to Usenet. This means top posting *is* better, but
> my contention is that inline posting is better still.

Now you're starting to get it!

>> (I'm saying it is irresponsible to expect every reader to scroll through
>> EVERY post all the way to the bottom to find new content.)
>
> I not I'm making that argument. If you have that impression that I am,
> then I have not done an adequate job in my postings to tell you what I
> do want. Quoting an article you are responding to does not require the
> inclusion of all its text - the less quoted the better, as long as it
> provides context. A single quoted line is often adequate.

Why don't people write as you wish? Why is it fashionable to bash top
posters? Why don't pigs whistle?

>> (I'm pleased we have this common ground to agree on. I tend to be a
>> little
>> grumpy when a post of mine is dismissed by some ruffian who is barely
>> literate issues a proclamation that I'm wrong without even an attempt to
>> understand what I've written.
>
> "On the Internet, no one can tell if you're a dog." - well up to the
> point that an entity's behaviour set is limited to that of a dog. More
> like, "If it walks like a duck and quack's like a duck..." [What I'm
> saying is that I agree with you here]
>
>> I don't have any advanced "education", but I began
>> learning and thinking 71 years ago.
>
> 71 years is an advanced education in itself. As long as you've been
> building on that knowledge and experience in those then it is of far
> greater value to me and others than someone who went from high school to
> PhD to get the pieces of paper without life experience and then think
> they know it all because of those pieces of paper. As stupid as
> believing that film stars' opinions on anything other than acting are
> automatically more valuable than yours or mine.

>> However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank
>> on usenet as just another guy.)
>
> I believe reputation is what ranks us on Usenet. I would hate to be
> categorised as equal with some of the people I see 'contributing' to
> various Usenet newsgroups.

You're responding to me! Do you mean me?

> I see posting on Usenet as not what is better for me, but what is likely
> to be reasonable to the most number of readers out there that I want to
> influence. As such I abide by Netiquette rules that may be detrimental
> to my own interests but are good for the community.
>
> Bill Lee

snip

We are in agreement on the goal, but are very much in disagreement on what
can be done that is best for most readers. I've recently learned what a
friend the "blocked senders" list can be.

George Willer


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IM SELLING A FOLK ACOUSTIC GUITAR
    ... we, or rather I, would like to stop posting here. ... Have a good day, Bill. ... Bill Chandler ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: IM SELLING A FOLK ACOUSTIC GUITAR
    ... we, or rather I, would like to stop posting here. ... Bill Chandler ... Bill Chandler ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
    ... > I'm sure you may consider why others of equal rank to you ... suggest to you that there is no such thing as a 'rank' on Usenet. ... an inline quoted posting. ... who may disagree with other elements of Netiquette to also ignore these ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Wow this group has become pretty dead
    ... usenet does seem to be winding down to some degree. ... I'm posting over there through Google groups. ... dicks and constantly saying diaper this and diaper that. ... "Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others." ...
    (alt.2600)
  • Re: Ancient Irish Pipes?
    ... >> snip, Ive just been going to the reply option at the bottom. ... >Mozilla, Mozilla Thunderbird, etc., can access Usenet through ... Hence the arguments about top posting. ... dedicated news readers. ...
    (sci.archaeology)