A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?

--
Slimes Daily Motto: 1) Tax & Spend 2) Change the constitution to make
it easier to do (1).

Caesar Romano wrote:
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.

For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:

Caesar Romano wrote:
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

top posting corrected - go to the bottom

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:


Caesar Romano wrote:

A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.



For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier.

follow this: http://tinyurl.com/c42ek

No, I refuse to scroll down to read the response to the message I have
just read. I want to read it straight away.

Perce


On 07/01/05 11:30 am G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

top posting corrected - go to the bottom

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

top posting corrected - go to the bottom


On 07/01/05 11:30 am G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

top posting corrected - go to the bottom

No, I refuse to scroll down to read the response to the message I have
just read. I want to read it straight away.

Perce


Oh bull****. You read the last post and you'll read this one.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
No, I refuse to scroll down to read the response to the message I have
just read. I want to read it straight away.

Perce

The problem is not bottom posting, it is not snipping.

Only 90%? I prefer people that top post. It does make it easier to
continue to follow a thread...

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:

Caesar Romano wrote:
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.

HeatMan wrote:

top posting corrected

Only 90%? I prefer people that top post. It does make it easier to
continue to follow a thread...


And follow you will, regardless...

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
========================================
For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.
====================================

Even as I bottom post THIS response I have to agree with you at least
as far as I personally am concerned...

For Me ..... it is easier to top post
For Me .......it is a heck of a lot faster to read the "new" reply
For Me....... it is a hell of a lot faster

Bob Griffiths

When the net-Nazi's come out demanding everyone bottom post I
sometimes throw my 0.02 in to support top posting. But the real truth
of the matter is that sometimes top posting is fine and other times
the reply is complicated to the point where you have to intersperse
your new material with the old material, and for some short messages
it's just as easy to bottom post. There really isn't any one single
way that works best BUT in the absence of the trimming that was
SUPPOSED to accompany bottom posting, most messages are better replied
to with top posting if for no other reason then to minimize the page
down, page down, page down that long bottom posted threads result in .


On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 09:52:38 -0400, Bob G.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
========================================
For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.
====================================

Even as I bottom post THIS response I have to agree with you at least
as far as I personally am concerned...

For Me ..... it is easier to top post
For Me .......it is a heck of a lot faster to read the "new" reply
For Me....... it is a hell of a lot faster

Bob Griffiths

Ashton Crusher wrote:


On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 09:52:38 -0400, Bob G.
wrote:


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
========================================

For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.



When the net-Nazi's come out demanding everyone bottom post I
sometimes throw my 0.02 in to support top posting. But the real truth
of the matter is that sometimes top posting is fine and other times
the reply is complicated to the point where you have to intersperse
your new material with the old material, and for some short messages
it's just as easy to bottom post. There really isn't any one single
way that works best BUT in the absence of the trimming that was
SUPPOSED to accompany bottom posting, most messages are better replied
to with top posting if for no other reason then to minimize the page
down, page down, page down that long bottom posted threads result in .

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I prefer top posting and I will continue to top post,
ignore the self appointed Net Cop.

Cheers and have a nice Independent Day.

For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.

**** snip off

I, also, prefer top posting and think
bottom posters are LOOSERS! Well, not
actually,
but calling top or bottom or in between
posters loosers is just plain stupid. I
actually will
top or bottom post where the content
makes sense.

George W wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I prefer top posting and I will continue to top post,
ignore the self appointed Net Cop.

Cheers and have a nice Independent Day.


For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.


**** snip off

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Make it 91%
I just love top posting and will continue to top post.

For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:

Caesar Romano wrote:
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:26:18 -0500, Jim B wrote:

I just love top posting and will continue to top post.

Born stupid, and getting dumber every minute. A classic moron.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:03:04 -0500, Dan C wrote:

How do you know? Your mother must be a pig.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:26:18 -0500, Jim B wrote:

I just love top posting and will continue to top post.

Born stupid, and getting dumber every minute. A classic moron.

Myself as well.

"Jim B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Make it 91%
I just love top posting and will continue to top post.

For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:

Caesar Romano wrote:
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.

I too will not stop top posting. It's a waste of time always scrolling down
to see the replies. If one always wants to read the question that was posted
let them scroll down. The subject title ought to be enough to tell one what
the question was that was posted.


"Jim B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Make it 91%
I just love top posting and will continue to top post.

For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:

Caesar Romano wrote:
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?


Egg-zackly.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:46:30 +0000, Dave wrote:

I too will not stop top posting. It's a waste of time always scrolling down
to see the replies.

Another ****ing moron. You don't have to scroll much (if at all), if the
poster knows how to clip/snip out the irrelevant text first. Of course,
you dumb**** top posters can't understand that concept any more than you
can see why top posting is stupid. It must really suck to be that goddam
ignorant, and to completely lack common sense.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dave wrote:
The subject title ought to be enough to tell one what
the question was that was posted.

Right.

Caesar Romano, 7/1/2005, 8:27:09 AM, wrote:

A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?

I

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
i
d
e

p
o
s
t
..

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

"[snip]
Q: What is "top posting"?

I

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
i
d
e

p
o
s
t
.

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.


Do

more

research!

You're

doing

it

wrong

It

should

be

on

the

right

side :-)

Off Topic.

Please post at alt.usenet.police.wanna.be if you really want to revive
this overkilled discussion. This is like the "hanging toilet paper over
the top or through the bottom" discussion - half of us are smart and
the other half do it wrong. Obviously, the definitions of "smart" and
"wrong" are highly subjective.

=================

Caesar Romano wrote in message ...
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?

--
Slimes Daily Motto: 1) Tax & Spend 2) Change the constitution to make
it easier to do (1).

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:27:09 -0500, Posting Top Caesar Romano
wrote:

A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Thanks to all who replied. I probably didn't see most of the replies,
since I already had about 60 top posters in my kill file. However I
knew there were probably a few more of you out there and my "Posting
Top" post would bring you crawling out from under your rocks. It works
like a charm every time. You top posters are such losers.

BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
highly recommend you give it a try.

Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.

--
Slimes Daily Motto: 1) Tax & Spend 2) Change the constitution to make
it easier to do (1).

Caesar Romano, 7/2/2005, 6:31:10 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:27:09 -0500, Posting Top Caesar Romano
wrote:

A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Thanks to all who replied. I probably didn't see most of the replies,
since I already had about 60 top posters in my kill file. However I
knew there were probably a few more of you out there and my "Posting
Top" post would bring you crawling out from under your rocks. It works
like a charm every time. You top posters are such losers.

BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
highly recommend you give it a try.

Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.

I am a previous top-poster who converted to bottom-posting. I see the
value of both and will do both depending on how the thread is
progressing. I have learned to be flexible since I can't make others
do what I want them to do. Killfiling people for top-posting is really
rather petty and you are the one losing out since you are shutting
yourself off to a wealth of experience and knowledge. It was through
being educated in a helpful manner rather than being called a loser and
other names that I decided to change.

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

Do you really think anyone gives a flying f*&k about you and who you
do or don't killfile?


On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:31:10 -0500, Caesar Romano
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:27:09 -0500, Posting Top Caesar Romano
wrote:

A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Thanks to all who replied. I probably didn't see most of the replies,
since I already had about 60 top posters in my kill file. However I
knew there were probably a few more of you out there and my "Posting
Top" post would bring you crawling out from under your rocks. It works
like a charm every time. You top posters are such losers.

BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
highly recommend you give it a try.

Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

top posting corrected - go to the bottom

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:31:10 -0500, Caesar Romano
wrote:



BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
highly recommend you give it a try.

Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.




Do you really think anyone gives a flying f*&k about you and who you
do or don't killfile?



You seem to...

Only in the hope you'll kill file me.

bottom post corrected...


You seem to...


On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 07:53:20 -0700, G Henslee
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

top posting corrected - go to the bottom

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:31:10 -0500, Caesar Romano
wrote:



BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
highly recommend you give it a try.

Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.




Do you really think anyone gives a flying f*&k about you and who you
do or don't killfile?

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:17:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Only in the hope you'll kill file me.

Done.

Dip****.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Ashton Crushed the only hopes he had of being respected when he wrote:
Only in the hope you'll kill file me.


nah, this is more fun.

I like to see relies posted on top, gets to the subject matter quicker than
having to scroll all the way down on long posts.
And then If I need to go back to the original or previous replies I can then
scroll down

Anyway, When newsgroups started there was no rule as how to post and most
back then was top down anyway.


"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
contribute anything worth your time.

Q: What can I do about this?

A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
accustomed to following a logical progression of written
comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
comments. Often their contribution is useless.

Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?

A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.

Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?

A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.

Q: What is "top posting"?

--
Slimes Daily Motto: 1) Tax & Spend 2) Change the constitution to make
it easier to do (1).

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:29:35 -0400, MC wrote:

I like to see relies posted on top, gets to the subject matter quicker than
having to scroll all the way down on long posts.

That's because you're an idiot.

Anyway, When newsgroups started there was no rule as how to post and most
back then was top down anyway.

Riiigghhhtt.... You sure know a lot, huh?

How come you use Outhouse Excuse to post here? I would think a long-time
Usenet expert would be using a real newsreader client...

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:29:35 -0400, MC wrote:


I like to see relies posted on top, gets to the subject matter quicker than
having to scroll all the way down on long posts.


That's because you're an idiot.
And you are a kaner, which is much worse than an idiot, and
besides, the logic of the poster is quite on target. If you're
actually in posession of any memory, AND were intereseted in that
post, you would already know what's in it. You're probably one of
those who reads everything just looking for an excuse to asc
kanish again. Typical of troll activities, actually, only more of
a bottom-feeder.


Anyway, When newsgroups started there was no rule as how to post and most
back then was top down anyway.
Actually, there was. It was top posting. Read up on a little
history; it's interesting.


Riiigghhhtt.... You sure know a lot, huh?
Apparently he knows more than you do, that's quyite apparent, and
can also think for himself.

How come you use Outhouse Excuse to post here? I would think a long-time
Usenet expert would be using a real newsreader client...
Because he has an excellent newsreader; one which is many times
more functional, controllable, and current than yours. Show me a
perfect newsreader and I'll show you a fraud. Because YOU like to
"follow" someone instead of think for yourself doesn't mean anyone
else, any period, has to, least of all the poster or myself.

Go back to kaning yourself and you'll feel as debased as your
needs imply.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:57:53 -0400, Pop wrote:

I like to see relies posted on top, gets to the subject matter quicker
than having to scroll all the way down on long posts.

That's because you're an idiot.

And you are a kaner, which is much worse than an idiot, and besides, the
logic of the poster is quite on target.

Neither of you morons knows the first thing about logic.

Riiigghhhtt.... You sure know a lot, huh?

Apparently he knows more than you do, that's quyite apparent, and can
also think for himself.

There's your "logic" at work, huh? How do you arrive at the conclusion
that I can't think for myself, based on what I said there?

How come you use Outhouse Excuse to post here? I would think a
long-time Usenet expert would be using a real newsreader client...

Because he has an excellent newsreader; one which is many times more
functional, controllable, and current than yours.

LOL! You're completely clueless. Outhouse Excuse is a viral-infected
security breach just waiting to happen. Any serious computer user knows
that.

Because YOU like to "follow" someone instead of think for yourself
doesn't mean anyone else, any period, has to, least of all the poster or
myself.

There you go again with that stuff. How on earth do you come up with
that? What have I done that indicates to you that I don't think for
myself. Try to stay on track, will ya?

Go back to kaning yourself and you'll feel as debased as your needs
imply.

Sure. Right.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

There still aren't any rules. Just frustrated little dorks who like to tell
other people what to do. They've been failing at it for years.

Do what you want to do.


"MC" wrote in message
...
I like to see relies posted on top, gets to the subject matter quicker
than
having to scroll all the way down on long posts.
And then If I need to go back to the original or previous replies I can
then
scroll down

Anyway, When newsgroups started there was no rule as how to post and most
back then was top down anyway.

"QB3" wrote in message
...
There still aren't any rules. Just frustrated little
dorks who like to tell
other people what to do. They've been failing at it
for years.

Do what you want to do.

Well, here it's OK, but in groups where it's easy to
find their FAQs and especially when they're posted
periodically, you should do as the norm requests. If
you want to be taken seriously you need to follow
established conventions or most won't even bother to
read the little words of wit.
It's not that big a deal to follow an obvious norm,
which is pretty obvious after reading a few posts and
lurking for a bit. Otherwise you're abusing the
newsgroup, IMO. If I see a trashed thread because of
the posting methods employed, well, like many others, I
just move on, ignoring that poster.

My 2 cents,

Pop



"MC" wrote in message
...
I like to see relies posted on top, gets to the
subject matter quicker
than
having to scroll all the way down on long posts.
And then If I need to go back to the original or
previous replies I can
then
scroll down

Anyway, When newsgroups started there was no rule as
how to post and most
back then was top down anyway.

MC wrote:

I like to see replies posted on top, gets to the subject matter quicker than
having to scroll all the way down on long posts.
And then If I need to go back to the original or previous replies I can then
scroll down
Same here. It's quicker and more efficient, especially if you've
folloed the thread right along.
For the most part however, most newsgroups prefer bottom
posting, but the -best- way to post is inline, as I am doing here.
You're supposed to trim out the non-relevant parts of the post,
leaving only the part you're replying to, for the best clarity.
Bottom posting is next "best" (not in my opinion, but ...) and top
posting is sometimes frowned upon.
In an unmoderated group such as this, there really is no
-best-method and there are no specific FAQs made available to
posters to read, and if one is recommended somehow, it's never
posted as such until they want to use it to back up their
fanspastic claims about what's good and what's bad.

Anyway, When newsgroups started there was no rule as how to post and most
back then was top down anyway.

Actually, there were rules when _newsgroups_ first started, and it
was top posting. Newsgroups at that time were specialized and
pariticpants knew what most threads were about, or they bothered
to find out if they needed to understand it more. RFC 1855 at
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
says it pretty well, amongst a couple of other ones, and an FYI.
RFC = "Request for Comment" but most today want to use them for
gospel, even though most of htem haven't been updated in ten years
or more. An RFC becomes an FYI once it's accepted, and then
might, never does anymore, become a written standard. Most of the
fanspastics who complain about posting methods are pretty ignorant
of such things but it's worth knowing just from a historical
prospective. There's lots of good info at faq.org; worth checking
out, IMO.

In the end, IMO, the proper etiquette is to "do as others are
going". OE unfortunately missed the boat on setting Replies for
top posting only. There is an OEQuoteFix program that'll fix
that, and also add the colored fererences so you can tell at a
glance who said what. It works rather well, actually.

blatherskite blather removed for obvious reaons

For the spastics out there who are going to actually LOOK to see
what my client is, you're right: It's Mozilla. It comes up short
in a lot of places compared to OE, but at the same time it's got a
couple of things I like when I'm going into crapfested territories
like the kaners and fanspastics like to try to create. Usually I
use OE but chose to use Moz today. So, it's the spastic's
problems, not mine. I'm quite happy with my arsenal of tools.

HTH,

Pop