Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
03-26-2006 | 05:40 PM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
In article <44270e37.8722265@nntp.charter.net>, secretspam@ihatespam.net
says...
> AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
> message boards of BBSs.
I would have been dropped if I top posted on /any/ of the BBS's I jacked
onto.
>
> 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.
Oh ffs. Here's a challenge. Find a thread from the earliest archives of
google. Any thread. This one is from 1985.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/net...ad/b4a49e041f6
ebb7c/64862e665d496c48?lnk=st&q=morning+group+best&rnum= 609&hl=en#
64862e665d496c48
http://tinyurl.com/lecqr
Guess what. NOBODY top posted in those days. It is a new phenomenon,
imported by people to whom PC's were for something other than work.
> 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).
That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
> The other crutch is that their
> minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
> down below for ther context.
>
It is simply a case of trying to convey information as accurately as
possible. Try following a thread properly on google. Try extracting
information from a thread which has been almost exclusively top posted.
> 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!
>
On the one hand we ask people to google because we get sick of all the
same questions over and over and over and on the other you wish to make
that impossible for them by hiding context in reams of disjointed
waffle.
--
Alan LeHun
says...
> AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
> message boards of BBSs.
I would have been dropped if I top posted on /any/ of the BBS's I jacked
onto.
>
> 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.
Oh ffs. Here's a challenge. Find a thread from the earliest archives of
google. Any thread. This one is from 1985.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/net...ad/b4a49e041f6
ebb7c/64862e665d496c48?lnk=st&q=morning+group+best&rnum= 609&hl=en#
64862e665d496c48
http://tinyurl.com/lecqr
Guess what. NOBODY top posted in those days. It is a new phenomenon,
imported by people to whom PC's were for something other than work.
> 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).
That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
> The other crutch is that their
> minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
> down below for ther context.
>
It is simply a case of trying to convey information as accurately as
possible. Try following a thread properly on google. Try extracting
information from a thread which has been almost exclusively top posted.
> 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!
>
On the one hand we ask people to google because we get sick of all the
same questions over and over and over and on the other you wish to make
that impossible for them by hiding context in reams of disjointed
waffle.
--
Alan LeHun
03-26-2006 | 05:40 PM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
In article <44270e37.8722265@nntp.charter.net>, secretspam@ihatespam.net
says...
> AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
> message boards of BBSs.
I would have been dropped if I top posted on /any/ of the BBS's I jacked
onto.
>
> 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.
Oh ffs. Here's a challenge. Find a thread from the earliest archives of
google. Any thread. This one is from 1985.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/net...ad/b4a49e041f6
ebb7c/64862e665d496c48?lnk=st&q=morning+group+best&rnum= 609&hl=en#
64862e665d496c48
http://tinyurl.com/lecqr
Guess what. NOBODY top posted in those days. It is a new phenomenon,
imported by people to whom PC's were for something other than work.
> 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).
That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
> The other crutch is that their
> minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
> down below for ther context.
>
It is simply a case of trying to convey information as accurately as
possible. Try following a thread properly on google. Try extracting
information from a thread which has been almost exclusively top posted.
> 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!
>
On the one hand we ask people to google because we get sick of all the
same questions over and over and over and on the other you wish to make
that impossible for them by hiding context in reams of disjointed
waffle.
--
Alan LeHun
says...
> AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
> message boards of BBSs.
I would have been dropped if I top posted on /any/ of the BBS's I jacked
onto.
>
> 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.
Oh ffs. Here's a challenge. Find a thread from the earliest archives of
google. Any thread. This one is from 1985.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/net...ad/b4a49e041f6
ebb7c/64862e665d496c48?lnk=st&q=morning+group+best&rnum= 609&hl=en#
64862e665d496c48
http://tinyurl.com/lecqr
Guess what. NOBODY top posted in those days. It is a new phenomenon,
imported by people to whom PC's were for something other than work.
> 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).
That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
> The other crutch is that their
> minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
> down below for ther context.
>
It is simply a case of trying to convey information as accurately as
possible. Try following a thread properly on google. Try extracting
information from a thread which has been almost exclusively top posted.
> 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!
>
On the one hand we ask people to google because we get sick of all the
same questions over and over and over and on the other you wish to make
that impossible for them by hiding context in reams of disjointed
waffle.
--
Alan LeHun
03-26-2006 | 05:40 PM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
In article <44270e37.8722265@nntp.charter.net>, secretspam@ihatespam.net
says...
> AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
> message boards of BBSs.
I would have been dropped if I top posted on /any/ of the BBS's I jacked
onto.
>
> 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.
Oh ffs. Here's a challenge. Find a thread from the earliest archives of
google. Any thread. This one is from 1985.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/net...ad/b4a49e041f6
ebb7c/64862e665d496c48?lnk=st&q=morning+group+best&rnum= 609&hl=en#
64862e665d496c48
http://tinyurl.com/lecqr
Guess what. NOBODY top posted in those days. It is a new phenomenon,
imported by people to whom PC's were for something other than work.
> 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).
That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
> The other crutch is that their
> minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
> down below for ther context.
>
It is simply a case of trying to convey information as accurately as
possible. Try following a thread properly on google. Try extracting
information from a thread which has been almost exclusively top posted.
> 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!
>
On the one hand we ask people to google because we get sick of all the
same questions over and over and over and on the other you wish to make
that impossible for them by hiding context in reams of disjointed
waffle.
--
Alan LeHun
says...
> AOL connected to the internet, and even before newsgroups, back in
> message boards of BBSs.
I would have been dropped if I top posted on /any/ of the BBS's I jacked
onto.
>
> 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.
Oh ffs. Here's a challenge. Find a thread from the earliest archives of
google. Any thread. This one is from 1985.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/net...ad/b4a49e041f6
ebb7c/64862e665d496c48?lnk=st&q=morning+group+best&rnum= 609&hl=en#
64862e665d496c48
http://tinyurl.com/lecqr
Guess what. NOBODY top posted in those days. It is a new phenomenon,
imported by people to whom PC's were for something other than work.
> 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).
That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
> The other crutch is that their
> minds become too confused by reading new material 1st, then poking
> down below for ther context.
>
It is simply a case of trying to convey information as accurately as
possible. Try following a thread properly on google. Try extracting
information from a thread which has been almost exclusively top posted.
> 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!
>
On the one hand we ask people to google because we get sick of all the
same questions over and over and over and on the other you wish to make
that impossible for them by hiding context in reams of disjointed
waffle.
--
Alan LeHun
03-26-2006 | 07:20 PM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:33:09 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
So much for decorum...or civility. <flush>
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
So much for decorum...or civility. <flush>
03-26-2006 | 07:20 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:33:09 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
So much for decorum...or civility. <flush>
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
So much for decorum...or civility. <flush>
03-26-2006 | 07:20 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:33:09 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
So much for decorum...or civility. <flush>
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
So much for decorum...or civility. <flush>
03-26-2006 | 07:31 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:33:09 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
Why even reply to any post on the subject? If you are correct, then
there is no need to argue about it, even if no one knows to what you
are referring to.
I personally believe that it is laziness that is the main reason for
top posting and not snipping or paring down the post. Hey, if that is
the way you learned how to post a message, so be it. Though that
doesn't make it correct like you believe it is.
Btw, the cursor is always at the top because that is the way it has
always been. It is the most logical place for it to be, kind of like
using the right or left side of the road while driving, depending on
the country you're in.
...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
Why even reply to any post on the subject? If you are correct, then
there is no need to argue about it, even if no one knows to what you
are referring to.
I personally believe that it is laziness that is the main reason for
top posting and not snipping or paring down the post. Hey, if that is
the way you learned how to post a message, so be it. Though that
doesn't make it correct like you believe it is.
Btw, the cursor is always at the top because that is the way it has
always been. It is the most logical place for it to be, kind of like
using the right or left side of the road while driving, depending on
the country you're in.
...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
03-26-2006 | 07:31 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:33:09 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
Why even reply to any post on the subject? If you are correct, then
there is no need to argue about it, even if no one knows to what you
are referring to.
I personally believe that it is laziness that is the main reason for
top posting and not snipping or paring down the post. Hey, if that is
the way you learned how to post a message, so be it. Though that
doesn't make it correct like you believe it is.
Btw, the cursor is always at the top because that is the way it has
always been. It is the most logical place for it to be, kind of like
using the right or left side of the road while driving, depending on
the country you're in.
...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
Why even reply to any post on the subject? If you are correct, then
there is no need to argue about it, even if no one knows to what you
are referring to.
I personally believe that it is laziness that is the main reason for
top posting and not snipping or paring down the post. Hey, if that is
the way you learned how to post a message, so be it. Though that
doesn't make it correct like you believe it is.
Btw, the cursor is always at the top because that is the way it has
always been. It is the most logical place for it to be, kind of like
using the right or left side of the road while driving, depending on
the country you're in.
...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
03-26-2006 | 07:31 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:33:09 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
Why even reply to any post on the subject? If you are correct, then
there is no need to argue about it, even if no one knows to what you
are referring to.
I personally believe that it is laziness that is the main reason for
top posting and not snipping or paring down the post. Hey, if that is
the way you learned how to post a message, so be it. Though that
doesn't make it correct like you believe it is.
Btw, the cursor is always at the top because that is the way it has
always been. It is the most logical place for it to be, kind of like
using the right or left side of the road while driving, depending on
the country you're in.
...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
>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.
Why even reply to any post on the subject? If you are correct, then
there is no need to argue about it, even if no one knows to what you
are referring to.
I personally believe that it is laziness that is the main reason for
top posting and not snipping or paring down the post. Hey, if that is
the way you learned how to post a message, so be it. Though that
doesn't make it correct like you believe it is.
Btw, the cursor is always at the top because that is the way it has
always been. It is the most logical place for it to be, kind of like
using the right or left side of the road while driving, depending on
the country you're in.
...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
03-26-2006 | 08:02 PM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
In article <yoCdnW_xMP11JLvZRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
Fred W <Malt_Hound@*spam-me-not*yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <4427319f.27752562@nntp.charter.net>,
> > SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Top posting is the correct way. It's the Johnny Come Lately's that
> >>think it's all washed up.
> > As is apostrophe abuse, obviously.
> Whats an apostrophe? You Johnny Come Lately's think you can bamboozle
> us with all you're big word's.
> Personally, Im much more of a ellipsis abuser... They just seem to fit
> into the typed conversation's more better...
Brilliant.
--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Fred W <Malt_Hound@*spam-me-not*yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <4427319f.27752562@nntp.charter.net>,
> > SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Top posting is the correct way. It's the Johnny Come Lately's that
> >>think it's all washed up.
> > As is apostrophe abuse, obviously.
> Whats an apostrophe? You Johnny Come Lately's think you can bamboozle
> us with all you're big word's.
> Personally, Im much more of a ellipsis abuser... They just seem to fit
> into the typed conversation's more better...
Brilliant.
--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
