<SIGH>... used to be, once upon a time, that folks were smart enough to
realize what they were replying to.... if, perchance, ones memory took a
sidestep, a small snippet at the bottom would be available to refresh the
memory....

I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
UseNet groups I frequented at the time. FWIW... I top post and I will
continue the practice. In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
his loss... not mine.

Now.... would you classify this post as top or bottom????

 

I'm not going to debate it. I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway. Top posting makes
more sense. Johnny come lately self appointed arbiters of internet
rules can suck my left nut. They are wrong, and so are the people who
worship them. The new material belongs right up front at the top. It
isn't laziness. The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason. If you
can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

On 26 Mar 2006 12:31:24 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2006 10:58:14 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Tom wrote:
>> >> apology accepted. and just to let you know, most of the time what ticks
>> >> people of more than anything else is "cross posting" a subject that has
>> >> nothing to do with the newsgroup or 20 other newsgroups it is posted in.
>> >
>> >Or top-posting. That sucks too.
>
>[top-posting fixed]
>
>> There is nothing wrong with top posting.
>
>You need to do some research. Top-posting is just plain lazy - just
>like full-quoting.
>
>Unless you read the newspaper from back-to-front, or books from the
>bottom of the page to the top. Then, never mind.
>
>Yes, yes - I've heard every justification. Go out and do some reading
>on netiquette, and learn something.
>
>Or don't.
>
>E.P.

 

I'm not going to debate it. I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway. Top posting makes
more sense. Johnny come lately self appointed arbiters of internet
rules can suck my left nut. They are wrong, and so are the people who
worship them. The new material belongs right up front at the top. It
isn't laziness. The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason. If you
can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

On 26 Mar 2006 12:31:24 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2006 10:58:14 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Tom wrote:
>> >> apology accepted. and just to let you know, most of the time what ticks
>> >> people of more than anything else is "cross posting" a subject that has
>> >> nothing to do with the newsgroup or 20 other newsgroups it is posted in.
>> >
>> >Or top-posting. That sucks too.
>
>[top-posting fixed]
>
>> There is nothing wrong with top posting.
>
>You need to do some research. Top-posting is just plain lazy - just
>like full-quoting.
>
>Unless you read the newspaper from back-to-front, or books from the
>bottom of the page to the top. Then, never mind.
>
>Yes, yes - I've heard every justification. Go out and do some reading
>on netiquette, and learn something.
>
>Or don't.
>
>E.P.

 

I'm not going to debate it. I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway. Top posting makes
more sense. Johnny come lately self appointed arbiters of internet
rules can suck my left nut. They are wrong, and so are the people who
worship them. The new material belongs right up front at the top. It
isn't laziness. The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason. If you
can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

On 26 Mar 2006 12:31:24 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2006 10:58:14 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Tom wrote:
>> >> apology accepted. and just to let you know, most of the time what ticks
>> >> people of more than anything else is "cross posting" a subject that has
>> >> nothing to do with the newsgroup or 20 other newsgroups it is posted in.
>> >
>> >Or top-posting. That sucks too.
>
>[top-posting fixed]
>
>> There is nothing wrong with top posting.
>
>You need to do some research. Top-posting is just plain lazy - just
>like full-quoting.
>
>Unless you read the newspaper from back-to-front, or books from the
>bottom of the page to the top. Then, never mind.
>
>Yes, yes - I've heard every justification. Go out and do some reading
>on netiquette, and learn something.
>
>Or don't.
>
>E.P.

 

In article <p2DVf.12450$%H.12030@clgrps13>, mechanic@telusplanet.net
says...
> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
> I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
> UseNet groups I frequented at the time.

Top posting just did not exist until AOL appeared. It was the uncleansed
and uneducated (non-geeks iow) that introduced it. They are the ones
still using it.



> FWIW... I top post and I will
> continue the practice.

There is a time and place for everything. There are plenty of froups
that are full of idle chit chat or wibble and in such froups, top
posting could well be the preferred norm.

In any group which considers it's prime function to be to exchange
information, then top posting defeats that purpose. Those that insist on
using it generally have other reasons for being in the group.



> In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
> if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
> his loss... not mine.
>
No. I could well be their loss if they decide to read your mixed-up
higgildy piggildy yet valuable input. If you can't be arsed to take a
little bit of extra time to format your post in a manner where all the
components lie in a logical and intuitive manner, then your input is
obviously of little value, even to yourself, and should be treated as
such.



--
Alan LeHun

 

In article <p2DVf.12450$%H.12030@clgrps13>, mechanic@telusplanet.net
says...
> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
> I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
> UseNet groups I frequented at the time.

Top posting just did not exist until AOL appeared. It was the uncleansed
and uneducated (non-geeks iow) that introduced it. They are the ones
still using it.



> FWIW... I top post and I will
> continue the practice.

There is a time and place for everything. There are plenty of froups
that are full of idle chit chat or wibble and in such froups, top
posting could well be the preferred norm.

In any group which considers it's prime function to be to exchange
information, then top posting defeats that purpose. Those that insist on
using it generally have other reasons for being in the group.



> In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
> if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
> his loss... not mine.
>
No. I could well be their loss if they decide to read your mixed-up
higgildy piggildy yet valuable input. If you can't be arsed to take a
little bit of extra time to format your post in a manner where all the
components lie in a logical and intuitive manner, then your input is
obviously of little value, even to yourself, and should be treated as
such.



--
Alan LeHun

 

In article <p2DVf.12450$%H.12030@clgrps13>, mechanic@telusplanet.net
says...
> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
> I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
> UseNet groups I frequented at the time.

Top posting just did not exist until AOL appeared. It was the uncleansed
and uneducated (non-geeks iow) that introduced it. They are the ones
still using it.



> FWIW... I top post and I will
> continue the practice.

There is a time and place for everything. There are plenty of froups
that are full of idle chit chat or wibble and in such froups, top
posting could well be the preferred norm.

In any group which considers it's prime function to be to exchange
information, then top posting defeats that purpose. Those that insist on
using it generally have other reasons for being in the group.



> In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
> if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
> his loss... not mine.
>
No. I could well be their loss if they decide to read your mixed-up
higgildy piggildy yet valuable input. If you can't be arsed to take a
little bit of extra time to format your post in a manner where all the
components lie in a logical and intuitive manner, then your input is
obviously of little value, even to yourself, and should be treated as
such.



--
Alan LeHun

 

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:37:50 +0100, Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:

>In article <p2DVf.12450$%H.12030@clgrps13>, mechanic@telusplanet.net
>says...
>> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
>> I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
>> UseNet groups I frequented at the time.
>
>Top posting just did not exist until AOL appeared. It was the uncleansed
>and uneducated (non-geeks iow) that introduced it. They are the ones
>still using it.

That is utterly false. Top posting existed before AOL less alone when
AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
message boards of BBSs.

It wasn't until access to the internet and the online experience in
general became more popular that people with poor memories and/or
messaging software needed 2 crutches. One crutch is to have the
entire contents of the thread thus far re-quoted in every message
because they don't read messages in thread groupings (instead probably
using date sorting or no sorting). The other crutch is that their
minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
down below for ther context.

Read messages in thread order and you don't need to re-read all the
goddamn history before each new bit. Hell, most times you don't need
much of any quoting as you just read it anyway in the previous
message!

>
>
>
>> FWIW... I top post and I will
>> continue the practice.
>
>There is a time and place for everything. There are plenty of froups
>that are full of idle chit chat or wibble and in such froups, top
>posting could well be the preferred norm.
>
>In any group which considers it's prime function to be to exchange
>information, then top posting defeats that purpose. Those that insist on

We think bottom posting is the bad way. The difference is, we don't
friggin cry and complain and bicker over different styles people use.
We deal with it. But when you bottom posting snobs start up a
campaign of criticism it must sometimes be answered. So here's your
answer; you aren't right, and even if you were just respect that
people do things differently and there's no damn law against it.

 

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:37:50 +0100, Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:

>In article <p2DVf.12450$%H.12030@clgrps13>, mechanic@telusplanet.net
>says...
>> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
>> I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
>> UseNet groups I frequented at the time.
>
>Top posting just did not exist until AOL appeared. It was the uncleansed
>and uneducated (non-geeks iow) that introduced it. They are the ones
>still using it.

That is utterly false. Top posting existed before AOL less alone when
AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
message boards of BBSs.

It wasn't until access to the internet and the online experience in
general became more popular that people with poor memories and/or
messaging software needed 2 crutches. One crutch is to have the
entire contents of the thread thus far re-quoted in every message
because they don't read messages in thread groupings (instead probably
using date sorting or no sorting). The other crutch is that their
minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
down below for ther context.

Read messages in thread order and you don't need to re-read all the
goddamn history before each new bit. Hell, most times you don't need
much of any quoting as you just read it anyway in the previous
message!

>
>
>
>> FWIW... I top post and I will
>> continue the practice.
>
>There is a time and place for everything. There are plenty of froups
>that are full of idle chit chat or wibble and in such froups, top
>posting could well be the preferred norm.
>
>In any group which considers it's prime function to be to exchange
>information, then top posting defeats that purpose. Those that insist on

We think bottom posting is the bad way. The difference is, we don't
friggin cry and complain and bicker over different styles people use.
We deal with it. But when you bottom posting snobs start up a
campaign of criticism it must sometimes be answered. So here's your
answer; you aren't right, and even if you were just respect that
people do things differently and there's no damn law against it.

 

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:37:50 +0100, Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:

>In article <p2DVf.12450$%H.12030@clgrps13>, mechanic@telusplanet.net
>says...
>> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. When
>> I first signed up for this, top posting appeared to be the norm in the
>> UseNet groups I frequented at the time.
>
>Top posting just did not exist until AOL appeared. It was the uncleansed
>and uneducated (non-geeks iow) that introduced it. They are the ones
>still using it.

That is utterly false. Top posting existed before AOL less alone when
AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
message boards of BBSs.

It wasn't until access to the internet and the online experience in
general became more popular that people with poor memories and/or
messaging software needed 2 crutches. One crutch is to have the
entire contents of the thread thus far re-quoted in every message
because they don't read messages in thread groupings (instead probably
using date sorting or no sorting). The other crutch is that their
minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
down below for ther context.

Read messages in thread order and you don't need to re-read all the
goddamn history before each new bit. Hell, most times you don't need
much of any quoting as you just read it anyway in the previous
message!

>
>
>
>> FWIW... I top post and I will
>> continue the practice.
>
>There is a time and place for everything. There are plenty of froups
>that are full of idle chit chat or wibble and in such froups, top
>posting could well be the preferred norm.
>
>In any group which considers it's prime function to be to exchange
>information, then top posting defeats that purpose. Those that insist on

We think bottom posting is the bad way. The difference is, we don't
friggin cry and complain and bicker over different styles people use.
We deal with it. But when you bottom posting snobs start up a
campaign of criticism it must sometimes be answered. So here's your
answer; you aren't right, and even if you were just respect that
people do things differently and there's no damn law against it.