top/bottom replying

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by mine12u, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. mine12u

    mine12u Guest

    Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to threads,
    top or bottom??
  2. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    mine12u <567opinupdaperligates> wrote:
    >Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to threads,
    >top or bottom??


    Usenet has traditionally used bottom-posting. This is very effective and
    works well, but it requires trimming the stuff you're replying to.

    When AOL came around, AOL used top-posting on their internal messaging
    bases, and when they got connected up to Usenet, there appeared a huge
    spate of top-posting on Usenet. For a long time it was considered
    extremely rude but these days enough people are doing it that it's
    becoming accepted in some newsgroups. It'll still brand you as a newbie,
    though.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  3. mine12u

    mine12u Guest

    It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
    is below my cursor position. So, I just type. but I see where following a
    conversation down, like adding to a piece of paper would seem more
    realistic. Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
    default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????

    LOL, ok I'm on TOP!

    "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:bioita$l32$1@panix2.panix.com...
    > mine12u <567opinupdaperligates> wrote:
    > >Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to

    threads,
    > >top or bottom??

    >
    > Usenet has traditionally used bottom-posting. This is very effective and
    > works well, but it requires trimming the stuff you're replying to.
    >
    > When AOL came around, AOL used top-posting on their internal messaging
    > bases, and when they got connected up to Usenet, there appeared a huge
    > spate of top-posting on Usenet. For a long time it was considered
    > extremely rude but these days enough people are doing it that it's
    > becoming accepted in some newsgroups. It'll still brand you as a newbie,
    > though.
    > --scott
    > --
    > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  4. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    Attribution:

    "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
    news:EsCdne8xi7W1TNKiXTWJkw@comcast.com...

    Quote:

    > It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to

    post
    > is below my cursor position. So, I just type. but I see where following a
    > conversation down, like adding to a piece of paper would seem more
    > realistic. Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
    > default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????
    >


    Response:

    No, what you have to do is actually read through the post and reply to
    the sections of interest, attributing the quotes to the appropriate people.
    It requires just a bit more effort than simply clicking reply and then
    typing your response, but then it takes a bit of effort to use punctuation
    and proper grammar too, without which conversations are a lot harder to
    follow. If you do it the "right" way, then anyone can drop into a thread and
    understand the conversation without going back and reading all the posts
    that led up to it.

    ryanm
  5. "Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste, and polite.

    There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post at the top, on the assumption
    that the reader has already read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to
    have to scroll down.
  6. Bob Cain

    Bob Cain Guest

    mine12u wrote:
    >
    > It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
    > is below my cursor position.


    While that's the easiest for the person doing the responding
    it is hardly the easiest thing for one reading it to have to
    slide down after it to understand what on earth the thing is
    talking about and then go back up to read it while holding
    the (often detailed) context in memory.

    It is more considerate to someone reading your responses to
    trim that to which you are responding down enough to
    establish context and intersperse the responses following
    the relevant points it contains (separated from it by blank
    lines.) That takes a bit of effort though and many here
    eschew any effort on their part in favor of shifting it to
    the reader. It's particularly obnoxious when the responder
    is especially verbose. There are a couple of folks here I
    routinely skip over knowing in advance that their "style"
    will prove more frustrating than their comment is likely to
    be worth.

    There aren't really any rules any more it's just about
    whether one wants to be courteous or he doesn't really give
    a rat's ass. I tend to give my attention to the courteous
    and ignore the rest but that's just me.


    Bob
    --

    "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
    simpler."

    A. Einstein
  7. Hal Laurent

    Hal Laurent Guest

    "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
    news:3F500286.7747C554@arcanemethods.com...
    >
    > mine12u wrote:
    > >
    > > It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to

    post
    > > is below my cursor position.

    >
    > While that's the easiest for the person doing the responding
    > it is hardly the easiest thing for one reading it to have to
    > slide down after it to understand what on earth the thing is
    > talking about and then go back up to read it while holding
    > the (often detailed) context in memory.


    It's not necessarily as clear cut as you think. I personally prefer
    top posting in a busy newsgroup such as this one, as it makes it
    easier for me to decide whether I want to scroll down to read
    the rest of the post before moving on.

    Proper trimming of material being replied to should always
    be done, of course, regardless of whether one is top-posting
    or bottom-posting.

    Hal Laurent
    Baltimore
  8. Bill Kipper

    Bill Kipper Guest

    You have my vote. Who in their right mind begins reading threads in the
    middle, or at the bottom?

    --

    www.acidplanet.com/starclimber
    "William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
    news:vkvroo5nkcruaa@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste, and polite.
    >
    > There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post at the top, on the

    assumption
    > that the reader has already read the preceding messages, and doesn't want

    to
    > have to scroll down.
    >
  9. > "William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
    > > "Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste,
    > > and polite. There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post
    > > at the top, on the assumption that the reader has already
    > > read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to have
    > > to scroll down.


    "Bill Kipper" wrote ...
    > You have my vote. Who in their right mind begins reading
    > threads in the middle, or at the bottom?


    PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
    These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
    for this newsgroup!!!
  10. mine12u

    mine12u Guest

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:vl04t4l06upo02@corp.supernews.com...
    > > "William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
    > > > "Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste,
    > > > and polite. There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post
    > > > at the top, on the assumption that the reader has already
    > > > read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to have
    > > > to scroll down.

    >
    > "Bill Kipper" wrote ...
    > > You have my vote. Who in their right mind begins reading
    > > threads in the middle, or at the bottom?

    >
    > PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
    > These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
    > for this newsgroup!!!
    >
    >



    Too late
  11. mine12u

    mine12u Guest

    I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

    Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this will
    be short a post and easily read. And, the only considerations I see in this
    conversation, is getting the point across, (which I have done or am doing) I
    am replying to you, and no one else (in this post) so, top seems fine, at
    the moment. The other, being for future replies to this post, which at this
    point, if a bottom poster replies, will be somewhat confusing, at least for
    the "next person reading and replying it".

    But from reading most all threads in this group, I see how bottom posting is
    better suited.


    "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
    news:3F500286.7747C554@arcanemethods.com...
    >
    >
    > mine12u wrote:
    > >
    > > It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to

    post
    > > is below my cursor position.

    >
    > While that's the easiest for the person doing the responding
    > it is hardly the easiest thing for one reading it to have to
    > slide down after it to understand what on earth the thing is
    > talking about and then go back up to read it while holding
    > the (often detailed) context in memory.
    >
    > It is more considerate to someone reading your responses to
    > trim that to which you are responding down enough to
    > establish context and intersperse the responses following
    > the relevant points it contains (separated from it by blank
    > lines.) That takes a bit of effort though and many here
    > eschew any effort on their part in favor of shifting it to
    > the reader. It's particularly obnoxious when the responder
    > is especially verbose. There are a couple of folks here I
    > routinely skip over knowing in advance that their "style"
    > will prove more frustrating than their comment is likely to
    > be worth.
    >
    > There aren't really any rules any more it's just about
    > whether one wants to be courteous or he doesn't really give
    > a rat's ass. I tend to give my attention to the courteous
    > and ignore the rest but that's just me.
    >
    >
    > Bob
    > --
    >
    > "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
    > simpler."
    >
    > A. Einstein
  12. Lines: 41
    Message-ID: <0n84b.597$gJ.528@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
    Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:08:12 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.212.102.2
    X-Trace: bignews3.bellsouth.net 1062277692 68.212.102.2 (Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:08:12 EDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:08:12 EDT
    Xref: news.newshosting.com rec.audio.pro:342724


    On 2003-08-30 mrivers@d-and-d.com said:
    >It really doesn't make any difference how you set the default as
    >long as it's set to put the original message in your reply. You
    >just move the cursor to the point in the message where you want to
    >start talking, hit <Enter> to start a new line, and start typing.
    >Then, after you've made your point, move the cursor down into the
    >original message until you get to the next point where you want to
    >comment and repeat the procedure. If you've said all you need to
    >say, then delete the portion of the original message that's hanging
    >below your reply. What's so hard about that?

    NOthing, and it makes for easier reading if you get in on a thread
    late. It also allows this old dos user with a speech box to skip all
    the header junk as soon as I see that I've read the fellow being
    quoted.

    What gets me is downloading all these multiple brag lines and sig
    files because somebody just hangs a one line comment under the header
    and leaves all the original message below with everybody else's sig
    lines and brag lines because we're too lazy to trim the unnecessary
    junk.

    Hrrrumph, too difficult to do with the mouse I guess.

    REgards,





    Richard Webb
    Electric Spider Productions
    No email, use this group and a subject of
    "ping RIchard WEbb" I'll email you.


    --



    Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel, when it's not, isn't it?
  13. Brian Takei

    Brian Takei Guest

    "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> ("mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur>) wrote:
    > It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
    > is below my cursor position. So, I just type. but I see where following a
    > conversation down, like adding to a piece of paper would seem more
    > realistic. Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
    > default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????


    Ctrl-[End], and always judiciously trim the quotes.

    And please don't say you're too lazy to learn that gesture. And learn
    at least a few other basic Windows commands, and you'll be all the
    better in the environment. Such as:

    Ctrl-[Home] (Goto beginning)
    Ctrl-Left/Right (Move to next word)
    Shift-[and a directional key/combo, including all the above] (Select)
    Ctrl-x/c/v (Cut/Copy/Paste)
    Alt-[Tab][Tab][Tab]... (app switch)

    And realize that the way of the rodent might be intuitive and familiar,
    but it ain't necessarily the best way to get things done, by a long
    shot.

    - Brian
  14. mine12u

    mine12u Guest


    > > Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
    > > default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????

    >
    > Ctrl-[End], and always judiciously trim the quotes.
    >
    > And please don't say you're too lazy to learn that gesture. And learn
    > at least a few other basic Windows commands, and you'll be all the
    > better in the environment. Such as:
    >
    > Ctrl-[Home] (Goto beginning)
    > Ctrl-Left/Right (Move to next word)
    > Shift-[and a directional key/combo, including all the above] (Select)
    > Ctrl-x/c/v (Cut/Copy/Paste)
    > Alt-[Tab][Tab][Tab]... (app switch)


    They keys are right in front of me, I use similar short cuts in other
    programs....eh....
    I just never thought to use it in Outlook express. THANKS!!
  15. In article <v3U3b.23$DY.199972@news.abs.net>, Hal Laurent wrote:

    > I personally prefer top posting in a busy newsgroup such as
    > this one, as it makes it easier for me to decide whether I
    > want to scroll down to read the rest of the post before
    > moving on.


    I don't understand this argument. If the replier has quoted
    properly, you shouldn't have to scroll down to read. If you have
    to, the fix is not to top-post, it's to teach the replier how to
    quote.

    --
    André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
    If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we
    despise, we don't believe in it at all. -- Noam Chomsky
  16. WE didn't start it. YOU didn't read all of the thread!

    > PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
    > These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
    > for this newsgroup!!!
  17. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    Andre Majorel <amajorel@teezer.fr> wrote:
    >In article <v3U3b.23$DY.199972@news.abs.net>, Hal Laurent wrote:
    >
    >> I personally prefer top posting in a busy newsgroup such as
    >> this one, as it makes it easier for me to decide whether I
    >> want to scroll down to read the rest of the post before
    >> moving on.

    >
    >I don't understand this argument. If the replier has quoted
    >properly, you shouldn't have to scroll down to read. If you have
    >to, the fix is not to top-post, it's to teach the replier how to
    >quote.


    BINGO! This is precisely the point.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  18. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
    news:vl0uusfn7sm690@corp.supernews.com

    >"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    > news:vl04t4l06upo02@corp.supernews.com


    >> PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
    >> These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
    >> for this newsgroup!!!


    > WE didn't start it. YOU didn't read all of the thread!


    Hey, it only took me 20 seconds to turn top-posting with trashed headers
    into a proper post.

    Ironically, Outlook Express comes free with every modern windows system, and
    it just works (although a bit messy with deep-level quoting which is why
    OE-Quotefix is there).
  19. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <vkvroo5nkcruaa@corp.supernews.com> williams@nwlink.com writes:

    > There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post at the top, on the assumption
    > that the reader has already read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to
    > have to scroll down.


    I may have read the preceding message, but yesterday, or several hours
    ago, and have no idea what the reply is about unless I re-read the
    message. I always let the one reading my message have a clue about
    the point to which I'm replying.

    Now when it comes to people who are too lazy or clueless to delete
    irrelevant portions of the message to which they're writing their
    reply, then sure, I'd rather it be at the bottom so I don't have to
    read the whole thing.


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  20. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <EsCdne8xi7W1TNKiXTWJkw@comcast.com> "mine12u" writes:

    > It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
    > is below my cursor position. So, I just type.


    That's fine if you're just spewing, but my memory is so short that
    unless a message that I'm replying to is also very short, I may not
    reply to all the points before I think I'm finished and push the
    "save" button.

    > Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
    > default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????


    It really doesn't make any difference how you set the default as long
    as it's set to put the original message in your reply. You just move
    the cursor to the point in the message where you want to start
    talking, hit <Enter> to start a new line, and start typing. Then,
    after you've made your point, move the cursor down into the original
    message until you get to the next point where you want to comment and
    repeat the procedure. If you've said all you need to say, then delete
    the portion of the original message that's hanging below your reply.

    What's so hard about that?



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

Share This Page