Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

Not replying at all when you could, replying without any
quoted text, and replying with abusive personal remarks
show a lack of etiquette.

The placing of quoted text is not a matter of etiquette nor
of manners. Those who object, and become emotionally
disturbed and abusive, at what is merely a difference of style
and a matter of personal free-choice, should, perhaps,
seek psychiatric help?

In any case, top-posted articles already are preceded by
a great deal of text in the header, text which includes
references.

I have no doubt that everybody will find this reply to
be acceptable on all grounds, because, in order to
not offend the emotionally-challenged, it is a bottom-posted
reply.

Barry OGrady wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 05:08:32 -0700, "Confused" wrote:
(M3/CB Fools' Licensees are renowned for being
ignorant and for being anti-social. Every single such
licensee who has ever contributed to u.r.a has exhibited
one, or both, traits.)

What is top posting?







Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

Not replying at all when you could, replying without any
quoted text, and replying with abusive personal remarks
show a lack of etiquette.

The placing of quoted text is not a matter of etiquette nor
of manners. Those who object, and become emotionally
disturbed and abusive, at what is merely a difference of style
and a matter of personal free-choice, should, perhaps,
seek psychiatric help?

In any case, top-posted articles already are preceded by
a great deal of text in the header, text which includes
references.

I have no doubt that everybody will find this reply to
be acceptable on all grounds, because, in order to
not offend the emotionally-challenged, it is a bottom-posted
reply.

"Dave X" wrote in message
ups.com...
Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.


Which you never have. The courteous way to post in those circumstances is
not to post at all.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:52:18 -0700, Dave X wrote:

Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

So you also answer questions before they are asked ?. Which is what top
posting really does.

Dave

Dave X wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 05:08:32 -0700, "Confused" wrote:
(M3/CB Fools' Licensees are renowned for being
ignorant and for being anti-social. Every single such
licensee who has ever contributed to u.r.a has exhibited
one, or both, traits.)
What is top posting?

Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

Not replying at all when you could, replying without any
quoted text, and replying with abusive personal remarks
show a lack of etiquette.

The placing of quoted text is not a matter of etiquette nor
of manners. Those who object, and become emotionally
disturbed and abusive, at what is merely a difference of style
and a matter of personal free-choice, should, perhaps,
seek psychiatric help?

Anyone with etiquette on the internet (aka netiquette) would conform to
the relevant RFCs for it's use. Well, funny then that RFC1855 says that
you *should* BOTTOM POST. Doing otherwise is to show a severe lack of
etiquette and courtesy and even borders on showing contempt for the
other users!!!

know code wrote:
Dave X trolled:

Anyone with etiquette on the internet (aka netiquette) would conform to
the relevant RFCs for it's use. Well, funny then that RFC1855 says that
you *should* BOTTOM POST. Doing otherwise is to show a severe lack of
etiquette and courtesy and even borders on showing contempt for the
other users!!!

Don't you know when you are bieng trolled by a spotty kid?

Weatherlawyer wrote:
know code wrote:
Dave X trolled:

Anyone with etiquette on the internet (aka netiquette) would conform to
the relevant RFCs for it's use. Well, funny then that RFC1855 says that
you *should* BOTTOM POST. Doing otherwise is to show a severe lack of
etiquette and courtesy and even borders on showing contempt for the
other users!!!

Don't you know when you are bieng trolled by a spotty kid?

I know exactly who was trolling. He is Gareth Alun Evans from
Chippenham and in the past has nymshifted between many usernames
inluding Airy R Bean, Dave X, Confused, The Conscience, Context, and
many more.

He is not a spotty kid either.... he is a 55 year old man who should
know better, but has a history of abusing people on Usenet. See
http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk.../10/91923.html for details of
when he was arrested for this!

He also has a history of making false accusations against the Police.
See http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk.../9/261728.html
from which the Sgt in question was cleared of all charges! Details at
http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk...10/261989.html

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave X"
saying something like:

Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

******.
--

Dave

know code wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

Don't you know when you are bieng trolled by a spotty kid?

I know exactly who was trolling. He is Gareth Alun Evans from
Chippenham and in the past has nymshifted between many usernames
inluding Airy R Bean, Dave X, Confused, The Conscience, Context, and
many more.

He is not a spotty kid either.... he is a 55 year old man who should
know better, but has a history of abusing people on Usenet.
He also has a history of making false accusations against the Police.
http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk...10/261989.html

Last time I was arrested for drunk and disorderly the matter was
handled by just two officers. They wouldn't have arrested me if I had
acted with a little more sense. (A little more still and it wouldn't
have got as far as calling the cops in.)

My point is they don't give abuse without a good reason and if the
prick had just gone with them or listened to them the matter would have
probably gone no further.

The original incident was dropped apparently. So no emotional gravy for
them to wade through. Having the 6 police men there and a video,
probably meant they were sure the tosser would be an handful and were
probably there to make the visit go as smothly as possible.

What an absolutely stupid prick the fool is.

I wonder why he needs to post on here? But I don't wonder too much
about it so no need to persue it on my behalf.

In message . com, Dave
X writes
Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

Oh do **** off and take with you

--
geoff

The message . com
from "Dave X" contains these words:

Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

In your eyes, perhaps, but very very many people disagree.


A: Because it runs counter to the way most people read and converse.

Q: Why is top posting bad?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Having the 6 police men there and a video,
probably meant they were sure the tosser would be an handful and were
probably there to make the visit go as smothly as possible.

Well yes, there is that point of view. The person in question would
argue that though

What an absolutely stupid prick the fool is.

We've known that for years on uk.r.a.!! It's surprising how quickly
people who don't know come to that conclusion!

I wonder why he needs to post on here?

Again, we've been wondering that for years too!

John Jonas Jameson wrote:

Dave X wrote:
Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

And so is bottom-posting. There's nothing to choose
between them, apart from personal preference.

RFC1855 (A "Request For Comments" and _NOT_ a
book of rules) states that top-posting is the preference
of the author, but that it is not a hard and fast rule.

Idiotic top-posting corrected.....

I agree that RFC1855 is not a rule book, but the title is "RFC 1855 -
Netiquette Guidelines" and has been accepted by the internet community.
By not complying with these guidelines you are clearly showing
contempt for those accepted guidelines and all other internet users.

Anyway, I guess you must read a different RFC to the one I read! At
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html it clearly states in section
"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews"..... "If you
are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the
original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response".

That clearly states that bottom posting is the accepted standard!

know code wrote:
John Jonas Jameson wrote:

Dave X wrote:
Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

And so is bottom-posting. There's nothing to choose
between them, apart from personal preference.

RFC1855 (A "Request For Comments" and _NOT_ a
book of rules) states that top-posting is the preference
of the author, but that it is not a hard and fast rule.

Idiotic top-posting corrected.....



Just check the headers for NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.21.118.235, a sure fire
way to see if it Garweth... he's obviously changing his sock puppets for
some reason...
--
huLLy
Big K and now the (Sergeant) Fuller Effect - ain't life grand!
Tel: 07976 123278
villageidiot(at)sheepandmeths.co.uk
ICQ 136-987-925

"know code" wrote in message
...
Weatherlawyer wrote:
know code wrote:
Dave X trolled:

Anyone with etiquette on the internet (aka netiquette) would conform to
the relevant RFCs for it's use. Well, funny then that RFC1855 says that
you *should* BOTTOM POST. Doing otherwise is to show a severe lack of
etiquette and courtesy and even borders on showing contempt for the
other users!!!

Don't you know when you are bieng trolled by a spotty kid?

I know exactly who was trolling. He is Gareth Alun Evans from
Chippenham and in the past has nymshifted between many usernames
inluding Airy R Bean, Dave X, Confused, The Conscience, Context, and
many more.

He is not a spotty kid either.... he is a 55 year old man who should know
better, but has a history of abusing people on Usenet. See
http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk.../10/91923.html for details of
when he was arrested for this!

My God! Not another **** kicker! They breed them there.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com, Dave X
writes
Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

Oh do **** off and take with you

Maxie, I like your solid contribution to this thread.

"John Jonas Jameson" wrote in message
oups.com...
And so is bottom-posting. There's nothing to choose
between them, apart from personal preference.


and done by morons
because it is silly
is dificult to understnd
Top posting

Guy King wrote:

The message . com
from "Dave X" contains these words:

Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

In your eyes, perhaps, but very very many people disagree.
What about middle posting as a compromise?
A: Because it runs counter to the way most people read and converse.

Q: Why is top posting bad?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In message .com,
normanwisdom writes

Guy King wrote:

The message . com
from "Dave X" contains these words:

Top-posting is a means of showing courtesy to other
NG users by replying to them when you have something
to contribute.

In your eyes, perhaps, but very very many people disagree.
What about middle posting as a compromise?

Well, contextual posting is the way to do it

post following the point you are replying to
... and snip what is irrelevant

--
geoff

On 25 Jun 2006 00:52:18 -0700, Dave X wrote:

Top-posting is a means of showing contempt for other
NG users

Correct.

Another way you could do it is to start off-topic threads and cross post
them to irrelevant groups.

On 25 Jun 2006 09:45:02 -0700, John Jonas Jameson wrote:

RFC1855 (A "Request For Comments" and _NOT_ a
book of rules)

An RFC *is* a book of rules, anyone who doesn't understand this is an
inexperienced moron when it comes to use of the net.

On 25 Jun 2006 09:45:02 -0700, John Jonas Jameson wrote:

And so is bottom-posting.

Generally it's regarded as poor form to reply to your own posts using a
different "From" line in an attempt to pretend that you have some support.

A gentleman would understand that.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:34:58 +0100, Steve Firth wrote
(in article ):

On 25 Jun 2006 09:45:02 -0700, John Jonas Jameson wrote:

RFC1855 (A "Request For Comments" and _NOT_ a
book of rules)

An RFC *is* a book of rules, anyone who doesn't understand this is an
inexperienced moron when it comes to use of the net.

Perhaps he'd like to try using his own version of RFC977.......

Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

cheers

Norman


Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:34:58 +0100, Steve Firth wrote
(in article ):

On 25 Jun 2006 09:45:02 -0700, John Jonas Jameson wrote:

RFC1855 (A "Request For Comments" and _NOT_ a
book of rules)

An RFC *is* a book of rules, anyone who doesn't understand this is an
inexperienced moron when it comes to use of the net.

Or perhaps someone (like me) who just couldn't care less!


Perhaps he'd like to try using his own version of RFC977.......

normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply to
a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of
the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context".

So, if you want some bedtime reading (it *will* put you to sleep!), all
the RFCs are located here

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

The message .com
from "normanwisdom" contains these words:

Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Just google for "rfc1855" or whatever. There's plenty of places where
they lurk.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 26 Jun 2006 01:19:16 -0700, normanwisdom wrote:


An RFC *is* a book of rules, anyone who doesn't understand this is an
inexperienced moron when it comes to use of the net.

Or perhaps someone (like me) who just couldn't care less!

Since you fulfill the definition of "inexperienced moron" all you are doing
is proving the point.

know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply to
a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of
the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context".
Yawn. Don't think I'll bother thanks.
So, if you want some bedtime reading (it *will* put you to sleep!), all
the RFCs are located here

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:31:21 UTC, "normanwisdom"
wrote:


know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply to
a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of
the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context".

Yawn. Don't think I'll bother thanks.

Another one for the killfile, then.

*PLONK*
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

TTFN
Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:31:21 UTC, "normanwisdom"
wrote:


know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply to
a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of
the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context".

Yawn. Don't think I'll bother thanks.

Another one for the killfile, then.

*PLONK*
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

normanwisdom wrote:
TTFN
Bob Eager wrote:
*PLONK*

Mr! Wisdom! You are upside-down!

Perhaps it's Roberta's (Bobby's) "time of the month"?

"normanwisdom" wrote in message
oups.com...
TTFN

**** off top poster.

plonk

In message .com,
normanwisdom writes
TTFN

Are you leaving ?

bye

don't come back


--
geoff

raden wrote:
normanwisdom writes
TTFN
Are you leaving ?

Jacob seems to be replying to a plonker.


bye
don't come back

I think his contribution in many things, e.g. sash windows, is
worthwhile. Far more worthwhile than the usually useless items
from Roberta, anyway.

This in uk.d-i-y, BTW. FUs set.

know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply to
a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of
the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

So, if you want some bedtime reading (it *will* put you to sleep!), all
the RFCs are located here

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

God I am SO bored with ****wits arguing about posting style.

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?
When that came out there was at best UUCP over 2400 baud modems, and if
you were very lucky, an 80x25 character screen with cursor scrolling. If
you weren't, you used the space bar.

Only sea lawyers and pedants give two ****s about posting style these days.

It's up to posters to make the context clear, and if it isn't, people
won't read them anyway.

I won;t add any more unnecessary bandwidth to the Internet than that.

C
o
u
l
d
n't

a
g
r
e
e

m
o
r
e
!

Th
i
s

i
s

t
o
p

s
i
d
e

p
o
s
t
i
n
g
..

G
u
d

i
n
n
i
t
?

cheers
Jacob

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply to
a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of
the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

So, if you want some bedtime reading (it *will* put you to sleep!), all
the RFCs are located here

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

God I am SO bored with ****wits arguing about posting style.

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?
When that came out there was at best UUCP over 2400 baud modems, and if
you were very lucky, an 80x25 character screen with cursor scrolling. If
you weren't, you used the space bar.

Only sea lawyers and pedants give two ****s about posting style these days.

It's up to posters to make the context clear, and if it isn't, people
won't read them anyway.

I won;t add any more unnecessary bandwidth to the Internet than that.

Walt Davidson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:07:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

God I am SO bored with ****wits arguing about posting style.

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?

Do you know how *OLD* the term "****wit" is? These days, it's
distinctly passê and labels you as a BOF!

I can remember {R} using the word in the demon newsgroups about 20
years ago. He may even have invented it!
:-)

73 de Wlat

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

****wit'll do but I think I prefer ****. They're all ****s. What's BOF?
Boring old fart?

cheers
Jacob

In article . com,
"normanwisdom" writes:
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:07:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

God I am SO bored with ****wits arguing about posting style.

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?

Do you know how *OLD* the term "****wit" is? These days, it's
distinctly passê and labels you as a BOF!

****wit'll do but I think I prefer ****. They're all ****s. What's BOF?
Boring old fart?

Also stands for Birds of a Feather. BoF sessions are the
starting point which finally leads on to new RFC's, ironically.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"normanwisdom" writes:
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:07:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

God I am SO bored with ****wits arguing about posting style.

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?
Do you know how *OLD* the term "****wit" is? These days, it's
distinctly passê and labels you as a BOF!
****wit'll do but I think I prefer ****. They're all ****s. What's BOF?
Boring old fart?

Also stands for Birds of a Feather. BoF sessions are the
starting point which finally leads on to new RFC's, ironically.

Ritten For ****s?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply
to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the
top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to
give a context".

So, if you want some bedtime reading (it *will* put you to sleep!),
all the RFCs are located here

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?
When that came out there was at best UUCP over 2400 baud modems, and if
you were very lucky, an 80x25 character screen with cursor scrolling. If
you weren't, you used the space bar.

Only sea lawyers and pedants give two ****s about posting style these days.

Does it matter how old it is? Some of the laws in the UK date back to
the middle ages. I suppose you don't "give two ****s" about those either?

The only people who don't follow the rules are the lazy-arsed scum of
the earth who are probably living off benefits between their stretches
behind bars!

OOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!

cheers

Jacob


know code wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
know code wrote:
normanwisdom wrote:
Can't say I'm wildly interested but where are these RFCs located?

Seeing as you top-posted, you obviously need the link!!! Read RFC1855
in particular section 3.1.1 which states "If you are sending a reply
to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the
top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to
give a context".

So, if you want some bedtime reading (it *will* put you to sleep!),
all the RFCs are located here

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

Do you KNOW how *OLD* RFC1185 is?
When that came out there was at best UUCP over 2400 baud modems, and if
you were very lucky, an 80x25 character screen with cursor scrolling. If
you weren't, you used the space bar.

Only sea lawyers and pedants give two ****s about posting style these days.

Does it matter how old it is? Some of the laws in the UK date back to
the middle ages. I suppose you don't "give two ****s" about those either?

The only people who don't follow the rules are the lazy-arsed scum of
the earth who are probably living off benefits between their stretches
behind bars!