Oh my goodness, I've been fired from the internet for top posting.
Sigh....I've tried so hard to abide by all the rules dictated to me by others.
"Benjamin Weiner" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MGS <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > Gee, I was unaware that you were involved in setting the standard for
the
> > Usenet community in 1983. I must admit that I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when
> > Reagan was
President.
> > Indeed , I was under the impression that the moderated Usenet was established in 1984.
>
>
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
>
> 1979 - USENET established using UUCP between Duke and UNC by Tom Truscott, Jim Ellis, and Steve
> Bellovin. All original groups were under net.*
hierarchy.
>
> 1984 - Moderated newsgroups introduced on USENET (mod.*)
>
>
> > Well, welcome to the new millennia. Top posting is acceptable for the
next
> > thousand years.
>
> People spit on the sidewalk, too.
>
>
> -Ben "What we need now are killfiles that really kill." -- Michele Tepper
In article <
[email protected]>, "MGS" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I find top posting superior to bottom posting. That way if I've followed a thread I don't have to
> scroll through the drivel that has already been posted.
That's why you <snip> out the irrelevant drivel, as I did with this post. I realize this actually
takes a few seconds of intelligent consideration, and many newsgroup participants want to minimize
actual cerebration as much as possible.
> And top posting is considered acceptable. The whole concept of not top posting is absurd and
> nothing more than and attempt to standardize the newsgroups with a system of posting that is
> neither accepted by all, nor required.
ROTFL! Top posting is not considered acceptable to the majority of the Usenet community. Never has
been. This is a convention that has been around for more than 20 years, by the way. You betray your
lack of experience and ignorance of history with your comments.
> And besides, I like top posting.
I suppose you do. It eliminates any need to form a coherent statement nor a relationship between
your comments and those that preceded you. Trying to read a thread full of top posters is like
trying to read a book backwards. It can be done, but it's unnecessarily tedious.
> I also like posting in between comments that specifically answer questions.
Which is where your comments should be. On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 00:36:21 GMT, "MGS"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>I find top posting superior to bottom posting. That way if I've followed a thread I don't have to
>scroll through the drivel that has already been posted.
>
>That includes scrolling through the top posting argument that has already been posted.
>
>And top posting is considered acceptable. The whole concept of not top posting is absurd and
>nothing more than and attempt to standardize the newsgroups with a system of posting that is
>neither accepted by all, nor required.
>
>And besides, I like top posting.
>
>I also like posting in between comments that specifically answer questions.
rock on.....
people, hey get so snotty about *top-posting*.....oh my, aren't they so damn
important....lol.....ownership!!
(no Euro top-posting please.....oh my, it makes us sooooo angry)
bob
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McNamara" <
[email protected]> Newsgroups:
>rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: Re: A fundamental
>flaw with bikes/cycles
>
>
>> In article <
[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
>wit
>> > when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>> >
>> > What's top posting?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Please don't top post.
>> > >
>> > > Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in
>> > > documentable form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That
>> > > they have all been abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's
>> > > alleged bicycle used treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.
>> > >
>>
>> Top posting is putting your response on top of the quoted text from the post you're replying to.
>>
>> There's a logical reason for no top posting: look at the above, which is quoted directtly from
>> your post. It looks like I said "What's top posting" when in fact that was your question. That
>> makes it hard to tell who said what and to have a logical, flowing conversation. So, you should
>> quote text and put your reply *under* the text you're replying to. Then the next person comes
>> along and does the same. The result is a thread that's easy to follow.
>>
>> The other reason is that often top posters add a one line comment, and quote 400 lines of text
>> below it, wasting bandwidth. Granted this is less important nowadays with DSL and cable and 56 K
>> modems, but it's still "good housekeeping."
>>
>> Now, you may well be trolling as I've seen your handle in this newsgroup before. If so, then this
>> post is not directed towards your edification but for that of participants who may not know the
>> simple ettiquette of Usenet.
>"Tim McNamara" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
>> In article <
[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
>wit
>> > when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>> >
>> > What's top posting?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Please don't top post.
>> > >
>> > > Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in
>> > > documentable form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That
>> > > they have all been abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's
>> > > alleged bicycle used treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.
>> > >
>>
>> Top posting is putting your response on top of the quoted text from the post you're replying to.
>>
>> There's a logical reason for no top posting: look at the above, which is quoted directtly from
>> your post. It looks like I said "What's top posting" when in fact that was your question. That
>> makes it hard to tell who said what and to have a logical, flowing conversation. So, you should
>> quote text and put your reply *under* the text you're replying to. Then the next person comes
>> along and does the same. The result is a thread that's easy to follow.
>>
>> The other reason is that often top posters add a one line comment, and quote 400 lines of text
>> below it, wasting bandwidth. Granted this is less important nowadays with DSL and cable and 56 K
>> modems, but it's still "good housekeeping."
>>
>> Now, you may well be trolling as I've seen your handle in this newsgroup before. If so, then this
>> post is not directed towards your edification but for that of participants who may not know the
>> simple ettiquette of Usenet.