OT: More top posting?

MJuric said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing. Since each post follows another post it would
make sense that a top post is still below the previous post. I.E. Someone posts something. The
person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply. Is that not in a sense top posting? So
my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is because a person reads a post and
replies. the next thing a person wants to read is the reply, not the original post again.

True enough but only if you're the only one reading the thread.

Quoted message said:

So top posting actually faciltates the proper reading cycle were as mid posts or sub posts breaks
the fluent chain of things. The only case were I can see top posting becoming a real issue is when
a person comes late to a discussion and tries to read the last post first. Then it would be bad.

It only needs a couple of replies before it becomes hard for anyone else to drop into the thread
without going back and re-reading the whole lot. If you knew in advance that it was going to be a
short two or three reply thread then there really wouldn't be a problem, but as you know, sometimes
thread go on *much* longer, like this one will. ;-)

It's not something I get too bothered about as it's a "rule" that's ignored so often. For short
threads it really doesn't cause too much hassle. As a general principle though, I prefer bottom
posting with judicious editing to reduce the repetition of needless verbiage.

Tim
--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

Are you drunk?

I read newsgroups by poster, not by subject. For example, I don't read anything by Dot 'cause she's
boring. I read anything by Surf 'cause he's not.

I think most people look for names rather than subjects when skimming a newsgroup with which you're
familiar. So you open a post by Wobbot simply to see what the clown's up to today, and you're caught
up in a thread about diet or lacing patterns. If the post is top-posted, you've to wade downwards to
see what they're talking about. If it's not, you read the relevant portion of the thread and your
idols answer. Then you can wonder why you bothered. Simple.

Roger.

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing. Since each post follows another post it would
make sense that a top post is still below the previous post. I.E. Someone posts something. The
person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply. Is that not in a sense top posting? So
my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is because a person reads a post and
replies. the next thing a person wants to read is the reply, not the original post again. So top
posting actually faciltates the proper reading cycle were as mid posts or sub posts breaks the
fluent chain of things. The only case were I can see top posting becoming a real issue is when a
person comes late to a discussion and tries to read the last post first. Then it would be bad.

~Matt

MJuric said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing.

Of course not. It's only "bad" because one day, some pencil-neck geek at Microcrud made up some
stupid rules, that was one.

Quoted message said:

ince each post follows another post it would make sense that a top post is still below the previous
post. I.E. Someone posts something. The person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply.
Is that not in a sense top posting? So my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is
because a person reads a post and replies. the next thing a person wants to read is the reply, not
the original post again. So top posting actually faciltates the proper reading cycle were as mid
posts or sub posts breaks the fluent chain of things. The only case were I can see top posting
becoming a real issue is when a person comes late to a discussion and tries to read the last post
first. Then it would be bad.

~Matt

MJuric said:

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing. Since each post follows another post it
would make sense that a top post is still below the previous post. I.E. Someone posts
something. The person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply. Is that not in a
sense top posting? So my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is because a
person reads a post and replies.

That's not the reason why it comes naturally. The reason you're referring to is because broken news
clients position the cursor at the top of the reply and not at the bottom. If Microsoft had paid any
attention to standards or netiquette when they developed Outlook and Outlook Express we wouldn't be
having this discussion. The only reason for top posting relates to email (most important in
corporate environments) but it was applied to news too: having the whole thread in one message for
legal reasons or if somebody gets added later. This is irrelevant with news as the whole thread is
there to read and news readers have been threaded since before the WWW was invented.

Quoted message said:

the next thing a person wants to read is the reply, not the original post again. So top posting
actually faciltates the proper reading cycle were as mid posts or sub posts breaks the fluent
chain of things.

Top posting falls completely flat on its face when there are multiple answers to multiple questions.
The same goes for those people who answer "yes" to two questions. What was being answered?
Interspaced responses (a form of bottom-posting) are obviously the most natural method of replying,
and facilitate a much better reading cycle.

Quoted message said:

The only case were I can see top posting becoming a real issue is when a person comes late
to a discussion and tries to read the last post first. Then it would be bad.

That's what threaded news readers are for. Wanna read the whole discussion, go and and click up the
thread. Reposting everything in the thread with every response is just stupid and a waste of
bandwidth.

The truth be known: the biggest problem with any reply is lack of snippage of the quote. Most of the
people who don't cut the irrelevant parts of a quote are being plain lazy. Cut out anything that
isn't necessary and leave enough for context.

Finally, I say stick with the style of the last replier, unless you're replying to the OP. Mixing
top and bottom posting in the same thread is definitely bad and stupid.

Malc

as with all things - wing it!

In article said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing. Since each post follows another post it
would make sense that a top post is still below the previous post. I.E. Someone posts
something. The person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply. Is that not in
a sense top posting? So my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is
because a person reads a post and replies. the next thing a person wants to read is the
reply, not the original post again. So top posting actually faciltates the proper reading
cycle were as mid posts or sub posts breaks the fluent chain of things. The only case were
I can see top posting becoming a real issue is when a person comes late to a discussion
and tries to read the last post first. Then it would be bad.

~Matt

as with all things - wing it!

--
Not every race can be a perfect experience, but every race can be a learning experience.

sydenhams chorea said:

Are you drunk?

I read newsgroups by poster, not by subject. For example, I don't read anything by Dot 'cause she's
boring. I read anything by Surf 'cause he's not.

I think most people look for names rather than subjects when skimming a newsgroup with which you're
familiar. So you open a post by Wobbot simply to see what the clown's up to today, and you're
caught up in a thread about diet or lacing patterns. If the post is top-posted, you've to wade
downwards to see what they're talking about. If it's not, you read the relevant portion of the
thread and your idols answer. Then you can wonder why you bothered. Simple.

Ok mabey I've had a few. Seems I do a similar thing yet when I find a discussion I'm
actually willing to read I go back to the beggining. As you stated I have certain people I
tend to read more often then others. However If I read a reply by someone in the middle of a
thread If I dare jump into things I nearly always go to the beginning and read the
"progression" of the thread. Believe or not some people get things out of a line that I
simply never will get. Sometimes those pertainant lines are <sniped>, I like to read the
original most of the time without follow up poster bias. But thats just me. However I
definately see your point.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Roger.

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing. Since each post follows another post it would
make sense that a top post is still below the previous post. I.E. Someone posts something. The
person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply. Is that not in a sense top posting?
So my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is because a person reads a post and
replies. the next thing a person wants to read is the reply, not the original post again. So top
posting actually faciltates the proper reading cycle were as mid posts or sub posts breaks the
fluent chain of things. The only case were I can see top posting becoming a real issue is when a
person comes late to a discussion and tries to read the last post first. Then it would be bad.

~Matt

Tim Downie said:

MJuric said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing. Since each post follows another post it would
make sense that a top post is still below the previous post. I.E. Someone posts something. The
person replying deletes the persons post and posts a reply. Is that not in a sense top posting?
So my point would be the reason top posting comes naturally is because a person reads a post and
replies. the next thing a person wants to read is the reply, not the original post again.

True enough but only if you're the only one reading the thread.

Quoted message said:

So top posting actually faciltates the proper reading cycle were as mid posts or sub posts
breaks the fluent chain of things. The only case were I can see top posting becoming a real
issue is when a person comes late to a discussion and tries to read the last post first. Then it
would be bad.

It only needs a couple of replies before it becomes hard for anyone else to drop into the thread
without going back and re-reading the whole lot.

Maybe I'm not the norm here, but isn't it prudent to read the entire thread before posting.
Of course your point is well taken if the person reading the post does not post reply.

Quoted message said:

If you knew in advance that it was going to be a short two or three reply thread then there
really wouldn't be a problem, but as you know, sometimes thread go on *much* longer, like this
one will. ;-)

Yes very strange how some rather obscure postings go forever isn't it.

Quoted message said:

It's not something I get too bothered about as it's a "rule" that's ignored so often. For short
threads it really doesn't cause too much hassle. As a general principle though, I prefer bottom
posting with judicious editing to reduce the repetition of needless verbiage.

Tim

The reason I posted this was because somone had posted something like this paraphrased.

natural order of reading messes with the because it is irritating Top posting

Well in this context it is entirely true. However I have never really had a problem reading
top posted messages and no where near the problem I had deciphering the above. Which
obviously lead to this post and the reasoning I think top posting is not all that difficult
to decipiher. For me personally I sometimes prefer it so I can go right through the thread
without "Searching" for the reply.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

sydenhams chorea said:

Are you drunk?

I read newsgroups by poster, not by subject. For example, I don't read anything by Dot 'cause she's
boring. I read anything by Surf 'cause he's not.

You'd be in a minority then: most people read by thread. Learn to use your news client properly
and killfile (a.k.a. filter) Dot and you will never see her posts again. Some news clients have
filter rules that would flag all the threads with Surf's replies in, if you wanted to find what
he's been writing. For really obnoxious people who I *plonk* in to my killfile, I have filter that
ignores the whole thread they've replied too... then I don't get see any of the stupid flamewar
that often follows.

Malc

ayber <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

MJuric said:

To cary this top posting a little further.

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing.

Of course not. It's only "bad" because one day, some pencil-neck geek at Microcrud made up some
stupid rules, that was one.

Not true, Microsoft's newsreader in Outlook Express top posts by default when you hit reply. It also
screws up the sig. line which is "-- " by truncating the third character (space).

--
- Mark ->
--

sydenhams chorea said:

I read newsgroups by poster, not by subject.

By thread and then by poster within. If it's about treadmills or HRMs I hit delete thread.

Quoted message said:

For example, I don't read anything by Dot 'cause she's boring.

I guess we read different people cuaz I read Dots's stuff.

Quoted message said:

I read anything by Surf 'cause he's not.

He on my A-hole list. Since you back on your meds I actually read your stuff.

--
Doug Freese [email hidden]

MJuric wrote: .....

Quoted message said:

The reason I posted this was because somone had posted something like this paraphrased.

Quoted message said:

natural order of reading messes with the because it is irritating Top posting

....

maybe someone will come up with something like this for usenet threads. (this has been floating
around on the net for a couple of weeks.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a
wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset
can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos
not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Fcuknig amzanig huh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

jobs

MJuric said:

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing.

It's neither here nor there. Pure question of habit. Example:

Deos it rlaely tkae you vrey mcuh lnoger to raed tihs, tanh if it wree not all smrcalbed?

Example "bis" : .thgir ot tfel etirw ew taht noitnevnoc yb ylerup s'tI

Example "ter" (ROT13) Gur sbez bs gur zrffntr fubhqya'g or pbashfrq jvgu gur vasbezngvba pbagrag.

True enough, top posting has zero advantages for the reader but, unlike the examples, is pure gain
for the writer. At least someone is winning out.

What gets my goat is that some lazy, dumb-assed programmer (or his boss or HIS boss...) who didn't
know the system he was writing a software client for, just decided to code it the way it came out
which just happened to be the opposite way to current practice at the time.

/Per se/ even that's nothing to get really exited about, but unfortunately, said programmer worked
for "the monopoly" and so he effectively screwed 90% of Usenet user's way of working.

No. Top posting is neither here nor there as such. Its danger resides in that it is a perfect trojan
for the vilest, filthiest, idlest, most egotistical, toe-rag, stink-bomb, disgusting, ewwww
grosssssss!! habit in the known universe, after eating your own bogies.

I speak of none other than quoting every single dumbf* message in the thread rather than trimming,
simply because it's soooooooooooo much easier not to snip the garbage - or worse still, to learn how
to set up the software so as not to include the original post _at all_

I vote we spare the top posters, unless they are also garbage generators in which case they should
be hung, drawn, quartered, boiled, tossed in light dressing and forced to listen to GW Bush and his
team for the rest of eternity, as they try to explain why they haven't yet found any AMD, but expect
news any day now, if not hours,... well at least before Christmas,... next year ...maybe...

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a general principle though, I prefer bottom posting with judicious

editing to

Quoted message said:

reduce the repetition of needless verbiage.

My sentiments exactly.

ayber said:

Quoted message said:

To cary this top posting a little further. I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing.

Of course not. It's only "bad" because one day, some pencil-neck geek at Microcrud made up some
stupid rules, that was one.

Boy, you really got things backwards. It's the pencil-necked geeks that are DOING the top-posting.
It's Microsoft that's largely responsible for it, in the first place; because of the utter
cluelessness of their devices and wares about all things Internet, such as netiquette, not turning
e-mail into a programming language interpreter that can turn the net into a cacophany of viruses
(thus sending 1000 e-mails my way, per day, down from 3500 a week ago), etc., with their top-post
generating Outhouse Exhaust e-mail-spamming utility.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normall read text.
B: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
C: Top-posting.
D: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

All right, what is going on here !?

Have you forgotten how to spell your own name or has Wobbit finally learned how to write?

Surf

"seve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MJuric said:

I'm wondering if top posting is truly a bad thing.

It's neither here nor there. Pure question of habit. Example:

Deos it rlaely tkae you vrey mcuh lnoger to raed tihs, tanh if it wree not all smrcalbed?

Example "bis" : .thgir ot tfel etirw ew taht noitnevnoc yb ylerup s'tI

Example "ter" (ROT13) Gur sbez bs gur zrffntr fubhqya'g or pbashfrq jvgu gur vasbezngvba pbagrag.

True enough, top posting has zero advantages for the reader but, unlike the examples, is pure gain
for the writer. At least someone is winning out.

What gets my goat is that some lazy, dumb-assed programmer (or his boss or HIS boss...) who didn't
know the system he was writing a software client for, just decided to code it the way it came out
which just happened to be the opposite way to current practice at the time.

/Per se/ even that's nothing to get really exited about, but unfortunately, said programmer worked
for "the monopoly" and so he effectively screwed 90% of Usenet user's way of working.

No. Top posting is neither here nor there as such. Its danger resides in that it is a perfect
trojan for the vilest, filthiest, idlest, most egotistical, toe-rag, stink-bomb, disgusting, ewwww
grosssssss!! habit in the known universe, after eating your own bogies.

I speak of none other than quoting every single dumbf* message in the thread rather than trimming,
simply because it's soooooooooooo much easier not to snip the garbage - or worse still, to learn
how to set up the software so as not to include the original post _at all_

I vote we spare the top posters, unless they are also garbage generators in which case they should
be hung, drawn, quartered, boiled, tossed in light dressing and forced to listen to GW Bush and
his team for the rest of eternity, as they try to explain why they haven't yet found any AMD, but
expect news any day now, if not hours,... well at least before Christmas,... next year ...maybe...

seve common said:

What gets my goat is that some lazy, dumb-assed programmer (or his boss or HIS boss...) who didn't
know the system he was writing a software client for, just decided to code it the way it came out
which just happened to be the opposite way to current practice at the time.

/Per se/ even that's nothing to get really exited about, but unfortunately, said programmer worked
for "the monopoly" and so he effectively screwed 90% of Usenet user's way of working.

The easy answer to this is OE-Quote fix from home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

Sorts out a heap of problems with OE and it's free.

HTH

Tim
--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

Tim Downie said:

seve common said:

What gets my goat is that some lazy, dumb-assed programmer (or his boss or HIS boss...) who didn't
know the system he was writing a software client for, just decided to code it the way it came out
which just happened to be the opposite way to current practice at the time.

Probably wrote in C++ propelling the myth that OO is the way to go. When will we ever learn that
simple is better.

--
Doug Freese [email hidden]

Surf McBrowse said:

All right, what is going on here !?

Have you forgotten how to spell your own name or has Wobbit finally learned how to write?

LOL. I did a spoof "they stole my identity" post and failed to change the damn thing back
correctly :oP

Tim Downie said:

The easy answer to this is OE-Quote fix from home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

Agreed. Thanks for the reminder.

Then again, an even easier solution is to use a real news reader <smirk