Re: Englishmans

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:20:07 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Richard Baker" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

That is just so rude, no need for it at all

So is top posting but that hasn't stopped you.

Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

The message <[email hidden]>
from Peewiglet <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So is top posting but that hasn't stopped you.

Quoted message said:

Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge. Suffice to
say that top posters are treating with contempt both the well
established conventions of usenet and those who abide by the
conventions.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 61 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:31:17 +0000, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:20:07 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Richard Baker" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

That is just so rude, no need for it at all

So is top posting but that hasn't stopped you.

Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

Brazen hussy!
--

Paul Rooney

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:43:53 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Peewiglet <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So is top posting but that hasn't stopped you.

Quoted message said:

Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge.

It's inconvenient to read postings in a thread that way, certainly,
but I don't see it as 'rude' myself. It only takes a moment to
cut/paste it to the bottom if planning to respond.

Quoted message said:

Suffice to
say that top posters are treating with contempt both the well
established conventions of usenet and those who abide by the
conventions.

I see...

Well I've tried, but somehow I just can't get too worked up about it.

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

Roger bashed at the keyboard and came up with this gem of wisdom in
uk.rec.walking:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge. Suffice to
say that top posters are treating with contempt both the well
established conventions of usenet and those who abide by the
conventions.

I agree, annoying as top posting is, it is not rude. These people are
normally found to be using M$ Software and as such as subject to M$ we know
best rubbish.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:18:53 +0000, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:43:53 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>
| wrote:
|
| >The message <[email hidden]>
| >from Peewiglet <[email hidden]> contains these words:
| >
| >> >So is top posting but that hasn't stopped you.
| >
| >> Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?
| >
| >I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge.
|
| It's inconvenient to read postings in a thread that way,

It is also an absolute pain in the **** reading posts which are both top
and bottom posted.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

In article <[email hidden]>, Michael Thompson
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger bashed at the keyboard and came up with this gem of wisdom in
uk.rec.walking:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge. Suffice to
say that top posters are treating with contempt both the well
established conventions of usenet and those who abide by the
conventions.

I agree, annoying as top posting is, it is not rude.

I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Michael Thompson
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger bashed at the keyboard and came up with this gem of wisdom in
uk.rec.walking:

Quoted message said:

> Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?

I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge. Suffice to
say that top posters are treating with contempt both the well
established conventions of usenet and those who abide by the
conventions.

I agree, annoying as top posting is, it is not rude.

I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

I agree!

;-)

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

W. D. Grey said:

I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

But such postings break the posting conventions themselves, so are
hardly arguments for top posting.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:51:30 +0000, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| >I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
| >scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
| >sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

On usenet on should snip the post to show only the point to which one is
replying. Failure to do this is as antisocial as top posting
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

W. D. Grey said:

I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

That's why it's also polite to remove as much of the quoted text as
possible, ideally leaving your first comment (with enough quoted
text to give useful context) visible on a page of reasonable size.

The whole convention assumes that comments are always placed
near the quoted text that provides their context - without that
assumption the advantages are less obvious, and consistent top-
posting (common in email amongst users who've been brought up
on MS Outlook) can be workable for simple conversations.

The worst thing for the reader is when a thread has been poorly
trimmed and bottom-posted, then a top-poster responds. In this
case, he has to scroll right down to the bottom to understand
the context of the new post. So the most polite practice is to
respect the conventions of the group (and for most of Usenet,
that's to trim and insert rather than top-post).

-adrian

The message <[email hidden]>
from "W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

But not so much of a pain as scrolling through an unedited message to
find nothing more at the bottom.

Meanwhile the conventions require writers to edit sensibly to avoid the
problem you describe. Top posters by and large don't bother with any
editing except, occasionally, by total deletion which, while solving the
wasted bandwidth problem, leaves their comment without any context and
the discerning reader with the impression that the top poster thinks
recipients will see their contribution in exactly the same context as
the top poster saw it.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 61 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

On usenet on should snip the post to show only the point to which one is
replying. Failure to do this is as antisocial as top posting
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

What about pointless signatures? Aren't they antisocial too?

AndyP said:

What about pointless signatures? Aren't they antisocial too?

<pedant> only if they exceed 4 lines and don't use a --newline
separator... </pedant>

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:00:47 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| "Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote
|
| > On usenet on should snip the post to show only the point to which one is
| > replying. Failure to do this is as antisocial as top posting
| > --
| > Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
| > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
| > please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
| > Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
|
| What about pointless signatures? Aren't they antisocial too?

Four lines, of 75 chars max, is within the recommendations.
Did you never read usenet primers?
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs at
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:43:43 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| AndyP wrote:
|
| > What about pointless signatures? Aren't they antisocial too?
|
| <pedant> only if they exceed 4 lines and don't use a --newline
| separator... </pedant>

<pedant>
"-- " note the space, is a correct usenet sig separator
</pedant>
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

I sometimes agree

"Peewiglet" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Michael Thompson
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger bashed at the keyboard and came up with this gem of wisdom in
uk.rec.walking:

>> Top posting is 'rude'? How's that, then?
>
> I see no point in repeating what should be common knowledge. Suffice to
> say that top posters are treating with contempt both the well
> established conventions of usenet and those who abide by the
> conventions.
>

I agree, annoying as top posting is, it is not rude.

I find that (convention or not) it is a real pain in the bum to have to
scroll down through two pages of quotations to find just a single
sentence or a :-) at the bottom !

I agree!

;-)

;;-)
--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

Dave Fawthrop said:

<pedant>
"-- " note the space, is a correct usenet sig separator
</pedant>

A useful piece of pedantry, mind, since I've just learned something, so
thanks for that! :-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Dave Fawthrop said:

<pedant>
"-- " note the space, is a correct usenet sig separator
</pedant>

A useful piece of pedantry, mind, since I've just learned something, so
thanks for that! :-)

The problem used to be that Outlook Express stripped trailing spaces
and broke the sig separator as well as defaulting to top posting.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"