Bill,

Thank you for your lengthy reply outlining why you are convinced your view
is the right one. I'm sure you may consider why others of equal rank to you
are convinced that top posting is better. Your arguments are not
convincing.

I'll quote your latest epistle and insert my thoughts where appropriate.

"Bill Lee" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Willer" wrote:

Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.

For this reason I spent my time to write that long posting - to give the
reasons why people *should*

(according to Bill and Larry)

take that time to delete extraneous text in
their posting before clicking on the button that says "Post". It's the
same way that I would try to get everyone to travel in one of two
opposing streams on a crowded sidewalk. You seem to be saying that
because not all people will join either of those streams then it is OK
for you to follow their example, even if you know this to be less
efficient.

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

I'm trying to say that the equivalent of a top posting rule
is the arrows and line markings painted on the sidewalk. Sure you (and
others) can ignore it, but we get better results if people abide by
them.

(There are times when the posted rules no longer apply. You're trying to
enforce an old rule that has outlived its' time. Your example is like
insisting driving driving on the right side is always the correct way since
there are places, even here in the USA where it is the wrong side.)

For Usenet there is RFC 1855 which describes how people should
post to try to ensure that you get the most out of other people's
postings and others get the most out of yours. Have things changed since
1995 when the RPC was written so that it is no longer relevant?

( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you imagine
have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote? Of those, what
percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have been arrested for
violating it?)

Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure
many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top.

Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be
bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are
replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about?

(Yes, I and I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the
top.)

Do you just read a
few threads in one newsgroup, or do you participate in a number of
newsgroups?

(Yes, I spend a lot of time on the internet. On usenet I read only those
threads that interest me 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.)

The reason that I ask is that I read so many threads a day
that it is impossible to remember who said exactly what without
appropriate quoting. Would you prefer everyone just posted replies
without context?

(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.)

Does your newsreader thread articles so that "just
replies" is viable on your computer?

These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said
in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is
appropriate there. I post inline replies in Usenet because it is
appropriate here.

When I read a newsgroup, the message disappears from my list of articles
after being read and the newsgroup window is closed, so I usually can't
see articles read yesterday or last week (nor would I want them still
listed). Thus I lose context of your reply if you just put your reply as
the only content of a reply.

(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.)

If the article you are replying to has not
yet reached my Usenet server, but your reply has then I have no idea of
what you are replying to unless you dump the original in your reply.
Even then I'm not sure, since you may have edited out relevant sections
of that posting that provide a complete record of the original poster.
Since the posting is yet to come, then I'll have to read the original
later when it does arrive at my server.

I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that
so I fired up a copy of Entourage (Mac) to see what the experience of
reading Usenet was like "the Microsoft Way". If your Outlook Express is
like Entourage, then you have my sympathy. I note that it does, by
default, put the cursor at the top of your reply by default, so I can
understand why a newcomer to Usenet might think that it operates the
same way that email does (since it is presented that way).


If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

As I said, I think it is the responsibility of a poster to minimise the
work that their intended reader should go through to understand their
message in the right context. If you say that I should start scrolling
through an entire message to see how your reply relates to the previous
one, then that is sometimes just too hard to bother with and fraught
with misinterpretation. What if I think the sentence or point that you
are making is in response to a different part of the message that you
are responding to? If there are two questions posed in an article, and
you answered one of them, is someone able to tell from your reply which
one you've responded to?

(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.)

Dumping someone else's quoted posting is (to me) lazy and implies that
someone have spent little time on this posting, and thus a greater
chance that their arguments or information is not as well thought out as
it could be. Just like a posting full of language like, "any1 can u use
a 4in 3jaw chuk on a S'bend lath i need toknow the answer tonite so any1
can help tell me" (made up example), makes me much less likely to answer
this poster, even though I might have the answer they need. If it's too
much bother to organise your own thoughts in an easy to understand way,
then it's too much bother for me to give you answers you might need.

(WOW! Now you've found something we can celebrate! I feel strongly that
the quality of a poster's care used in preparing a post reflects how much
consideration should be given their effort. Poorly written posts deserve
the trash can. The authors often deserve plonking.)


Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to
remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

George Willer


You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet
(years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that
civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation
will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a
doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong.

(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 rare occasion I'll reply in kind. I do
put effort into my writing. I was past 60 when I began to type and it is
still an effort. I don't have any advanced "education", but I began
learning and thinking 71 years ago. However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank
on usenet as just another guy.)


In Usenet, the best you can do is to killfile someone you don't want to
see postings from. If I killfile someone, I'll not announce it - they
will disappear from my list of articles, sometimes to be seen again when
my kill filter entry for them expires, sometimes never. If I reply to
you then I think you have written something worth responding to - if I
think you have nothing worthwhile to say and are likely to have nothing
to say in the future then you will be killfiled. (Obviously George, you
must have something I thought valuable to reply to.) If someone wants to
get in my killfile, that's fine - it can accommodate as many people,
subjects, NNTP-Posting-Hosts, or any other criterion that are needed to
filter someone out. That's not the issue - the issue is about
communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters
have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing
it in the most effective manner.

Bill Lee