top/bottom replying

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

  1. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <7IednS4nvPmZvc2iU-KYgg@comcast.com> "mine12u" writes:

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


    Sorry, but you ain't so fucking important that I have to read what you
    have to say before I have some idea of what you're talking about.

    > Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this will
    > be short a post and easily read.


    Fine, but if you only have a little bit to say, then don't (as many
    people do) leave the whole original message in yours, following your
    reply. In fact, if you really have very little to say, consider not
    saying it at all. Chances are someone else already has said the same
    thing, and perhaps in more detail and clarity.

    Newegroup _replies_ are for discussion, not proclamations.




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

    Hal Laurent Guest

    "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:bipuom$jar$1@panix2.panix.com...
    > Andre Majorel <amajorel@teezer.fr> wrote:
    > >
    > >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.


    I long ago gave up trying to get other people to change their behavior. :)

    Hal Laurent
    Baltimore
  3. Top posting doesn't work for people who are using software for the vision
    impaired.

    So, it is a courtesy to bottom post.
    Richard H. Kuschel
    "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
  4. mine12u

    mine12u Guest

    Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1062243865k@trad...
    >
    > In article <7IednS4nvPmZvc2iU-KYgg@comcast.com> "mine12u" writes:
    >
    > > I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

    >
    > Sorry, but you ain't so fucking important that I have to read what you
    > have to say before I have some idea of what you're talking about.
    >
    > > Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this

    will
    > > be short a post and easily read.

    >
    > Fine, but if you only have a little bit to say, then don't (as many
    > people do) leave the whole original message in yours, following your
    > reply. In fact, if you really have very little to say, consider not
    > saying it at all. Chances are someone else already has said the same
    > thing, and perhaps in more detail and clarity.
    >
    > Newegroup _replies_ are for discussion, not proclamations.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)


    End of message.
  5. LP@aol.com

    LP@aol.com Guest

    To the bottom-posting rule-makers:

    1-- I don't enjoy reading/skipping the same original post 5 times.

    2-- Many replies have no interest to me, whatever the orginal post.

    3-- It doesn't really have to be one way or the other. Context matters.
  6. Jeff Maher

    Jeff Maher Guest

    --

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1062243865k@trad...
    >
    > In article <7IednS4nvPmZvc2iU-KYgg@comcast.com> "mine12u" writes:
    >
    > > I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

    >
    > Sorry, but you ain't so fucking important that I have to read what you
    > have to say before I have some idea of what you're talking about.
    >
    > > Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this

    will
    > > be short a post and easily read.

    >
    > Fine, but if you only have a little bit to say, then don't (as many
    > people do) leave the whole original message in yours, following your
    > reply. In fact, if you really have very little to say, consider not
    > saying it at all. Chances are someone else already has said the same
    > thing, and perhaps in more detail and clarity.
    >
    > Newegroup _replies_ are for discussion, not proclamations.


    That sounds an awful lot like a proclamation.

    Jeff Maher
    Garage Mahal Recording
    Austin, TX
  7. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
    news:pLidnXVekNYBXs2iU-KYuA@comcast.com...
    > Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.
    >

    But yet you posted to a public forum, so you were speaking to everyone
    here. Kind of like turning off the music and screaming at the top of your
    lungs at a party, and then asking everyone why they're looking at you.

    ryanm
  8. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    <LP@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:3fo1lvodrcq0gsdbkrsdi9p56vgoe1eqmt@4ax.com...
    >
    > To the bottom-posting rule-makers:
    >

    There are no rule makers here. These rules have existed for better than
    25 years, and until AOL unleased the unwashed masses on usenet, everyone
    followed them without complaining because they realized that it made life
    easier for everyone.

    > 3-- It doesn't really have to be one way or the other. Context matters.
    >

    So does consideration.

    ryanm
  9. Garthrr

    Garthrr Guest

    >In article <7IednS4nvPmZvc2iU-KYgg@comcast.com> "mine12u" writes:
    >
    >> I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.


    Whats this about? <g>

    Garth~


    "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
    Ed Cherney
  10. Garthrr

    Garthrr Guest

    In article <pLidnXVekNYBXs2iU-KYuA@comcast.com>, "mine12u"
    <123whatrweefitenfur> writes:

    >Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.


    Wrong. You are speaking to everyone in this group.

    Garth~


    "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
    Ed Cherney
  11. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <pLidnXVekNYBXs2iU-KYuA@comcast.com> "mine12u" writes:

    > Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.


    Excuse me, but when you're posting to a newsgroup, you're speaking to
    everyone who reads the messages there. So watch out. You might get
    bit.


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  12. Lines: 64
    Message-ID: <qUp4b.1696$UF.868@bignews2.bellsouth.net>
    Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:04:22 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.212.98.19
    X-Trace: bignews2.bellsouth.net 1062349462 68.212.98.19 (Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:04:22 EDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:04:22 EDT
    Xref: news.newshosting.com rec.audio.pro:342857


    On 2003-08-30 LP@aol.com said:
    >To the bottom-posting rule-makers:
    >1-- I don't enjoy reading/skipping the same original post 5 times.
    >2-- Many replies have no interest to me, whatever the orginal post.
    >3-- It doesn't really have to be one way or the other. Context
    >matters.

    Hhmmm, another aol'er has spoken.

    It was done this way long before aol, whether it be fidonet or other
    online networks or usenet. there are many raesons:

    Numer o uno: IF you joined a thread late you could gather some things
    from seeing the replies. That's where judicious trimming of posts
    comes in.

    /I've joined many a thread in my time online after it's already
    developed quite a bit. THose who quote judiciously and interspere
    their comments with the quoted text allow me to join the conversation
    already in progress and know what's going on.

    There are often reasons things are done a certain way, the people in
    a community figure out how things work best to the benefit of
    everyone. Usenet contrary to the bleliefs of many of the newer aol
    types and web people is a community, or rather a collection of
    communities. THe way things were done before the mouse potato
    revolution and a computer for every idiot was bottom posting. TOp quoting means you trim the excess crap from your
    message or article saving bandwidth for those whom it matters to. IT
    also means that for those of us using other than visual methods to
    read your post we can skip the extraneous header information usually
    since it seems that all the routing and other info takes up the first
    screen excepting the last few lines. sOme folks who regularly top post
    are read by me, but many others with their one liner ditto remarks are
    ignored after I see a few of them. WOn't wade through the headers and
    junk below to see what they're saying ditto about.

    THat leads up to: Learn how to choose
    and properly use a text editor.
    Hard to get the context when you have to try to weed out the
    unnecessary garbage text left by somebody who top posted and can't
    figure out how to do some simple things like remove the unneeded text
    with an editor. Guess I expect too much, I expect musicians I work
    with to actually know how to play their instruments and I would expect
    if you're using a computer in a text based discussion you might know
    how to use a text editor.MOst have simple command keybstrokes for
    defining then moving or removing a block of text.


    REgards,



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


    --



    Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  13. Brian

    Brian Guest

    In article <X_mdnQSPDbmOU9KiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>, mine12u wrote:

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


    Since English is read left-to-right, top-to-bottom, bottom-posting is
    the more logical and preferred approach, second only of course to
    proper trimming/quoting.

    Brian
  14. georgeh

    georgeh Guest

    Andre Majorel <amajorel@teezer.fr> writes:

    >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.


    That is true, but I am reading these posts on a 300 baud connection
    at the moment, and there are several people who quote entire long
    posts then add a short reply at the bottom. THis is most irritating,
    and one of the reasons that I *generally* prefer top posts.
    The exception for me is when the reply is done "converstaion"
    style, where a few lines are quoted at a time, then the response
    is added. But such replies get confusing when they too are
    quoted for further responses.
  15. georgeh

    georgeh Guest

    Brian, what make you think we are all using windows, or have a mouse
    for that matter? I'm reading this on a Unix system from a DOS PC
    without a mouse. SOmetimes I read from VM/CMS systems w/o a mouse.
    For the record, I've NEVER read this group from a Windows system.

    Brian Takei <btakei@mindspring.com> writes:

    >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
  16. georgeh

    georgeh Guest

    rickpv8945@aol.com (Richard Kuschel) writes:

    >Top posting doesn't work for people who are using software for the vision
    >impaired.


    >So, it is a courtesy to bottom post.


    Ah, finally a good reason for bottom posting!!!!
  17. mine12u <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote:

    > Excuse me


    No, thanks.

    <plonk>

    --
    ha
  18. Brian Takei

    Brian Takei Guest

    georgeh (georgeh@gjhsun.cl.msu.edu) wrote:
    > Brian, what make you think we are all using windows, or have a mouse
    > for that matter?


    What made you mistakingly think I think that? My post was a direct
    response to someone using Outlook Express (version 6.00.2800.1158).

    - Brian
  19. reddred

    reddred Guest

    The only reason to top post in *this* group is to be obnoxious. In other
    groups where the conversation is light and no one is likely to be trying to
    glean useful information from the posts, it probably doesn't matter.

    http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

    All that said, I do it occasionally - but not where it might matter. As it
    is, this message makes little sense because I top-posted.

    "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
    news:X_mdnQSPDbmOU9KiXTWJhQ@comcast.com...
    > Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to

    threads,
    > top or bottom??
    >
    >


    jb
  20. LP@aou.com

    LP@aou.com Guest

    0junk4me@bellsouth.net wrote:

    >Hhmmm, another aol'er has spoken.


    > It was done this way long before aol, whether it be fidonet or other
    >online networks or usenet.


    > THe way things were done before the mouse potato revolution and a
    >computer for every idiot was bottom posting.



    You're smirking at the wrong guy, my angry friend.

    - I'm not an AOLer (read the headers)
    - I made a living with computers since probably before you were born (1966)
    - I was on message boards before there was an internet (Compuserve)

    and your reasoning is shallow too.

Share This Page