Top posting

[John Fields]

Whoever dishes out the first insult loses the debate

Think so?

Then go **** yourself, maroon, and see who's left standing when it's
all over.

Hint: It won't be you.

 

[mc]

I wouldn't mind. If I listened to all the previous posts, only the new
text, at the top, would be of interest. If I need my memory jogged I can
listen on and the proceeding post will become clear.

Bottom posting on text-to-voice would be horrible. You have to skip
through all the quoted text, at the very least, in order to hear the new
information. If you don't know what's there, fine, but that's beside the
point since most posts arrive.

Well said! That applies to reading on the screen, too, and is why top
posting is catching on.

Not in all situations, of course, but in those where it helps convey a
message rapidly.

The trouble with bottom posting is that you have to read the whole previous
message AGAIN (even though, in your threaded newsreader, you just read it)
before you get to the new stuff.

Threaded newsreaders are why top posting is catching on.

 

[mc]

Whoever dishes out the first insult loses the debate

Think so?

Then go **** yourself, maroon, and see who's left standing when it's
all over.

I think some attributions were scrambled, which is just as well under the
circumstances.

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Polite circuit designer, too, from the look of it...

 

[Roy L. Fuchs]

---
Well, for starters, because it _is_ in printed form?

But even if it weren't, just imagine listening to a text-to-voice
conversion of top posting.

Ugh.

The blind shall not see.

 

[Roy L. Fuchs]

I wouldn't mind. If I listened to all the previous posts, only the new
text, at the top, would be of interest.

That is where you retards lose out the most.

The post is NOT FOR YOU.

If Joe Bloe Usenet reader that strays into the group once in a two
month period looks at the post, he should be able to garner all the
information he needs in a chronological as it happened manner.

It is NOT your private little message board.

Do you run red lights on the roadway? If not, why?

I'll tell you why... because the prospect of being ticketed by a
cop, and subsequently having to pay more insurance strikes a chord of
fear in your heart, dipshit... that's why.

So, the only reason you "break all the rules" PUSSIES do it, is due
to the fact that I cannot reach over there and SLAP your retarded ass
for doing, you DUMB FUCKS!

 

[Genome]

I think some attributions were scrambled, which is just as well under the
circumstances.

Oooooo, nice one... My mistake... but you responded.

Whoops.

Go back to apply for your anti-maff ID.

DNA

 

[John Fields]

How about saying, "In addition to the following see
www.something.com/something" ? That's a kind of remark that makes perfect
sense prepended to the beginning of an existing message, and it does not
interfere with readability.
---
Agreed.
---


top-posted to EVERY message that has quoted content. A bottom-posting
purist would presumably want that information put after the quoted messages,
not ahead of them.

---
I disagree, in that that information is like a reverse chronological
table of authors, can be used to correlate an author with an
article, and belongs at the beginning.
---

The bottom-posting-only crowd wants us to have to page down every time we
read any message at all -- sometimes through more than one screenful of "In
message xxxxx, yyyyy writes." Top posting allows us to make a reply
immediately visible and save everybody from having to page down.

---
Your assumption is that everyone has read the thread, knows what's
going on, and is waiting with bated breath for your next top post.

Such isn't the case.
---

The bottom line? Top posting is an almost universally accepted practice.
It wasn't in 1980, but it is now. And the reason it has caught on is that
it meets practical needs.

---
What practical needs?

I hasn't "caught on", it's merely an artifact of Microsoft's belief
that the text of responses to email should be placed before the text
being responded to and their making it an annoyance to do otherwise.

What's happened on USENET is that those sheep have brought their bad
habits with them and instead of realizing that they're not in Kansas
any more, want to bend everyone to what they've been told is the
right way to do things.

 

[Roy L. Fuchs]

The trouble with bottom posting is that you have to read the whole previous
message AGAIN (even though, in your threaded newsreader, you just read it)
before you get to the new stuff.

No, you do not. If you are new to the thread, you SHOULD read the
entire post to get what it is about. If you are familiar with the
thread, it should be NO problem for your supposedly smarter than a
gorilla brain to SCROLL (a popular computer term) DOWN to the end of
the post, OR to the first area where a fresh response resides (for
interspersed responses), and keep right on reading new material...

BUT NOOoooooo... you wussified dipshits have to piss and moan and
make LAME attempts at changing things around to STUPID methodologies.
If you had just conformed, you might have a clue by now. A large
portion of the world is STILL on dial up, and top poster posting
practices are among the most wasteful there are.

Get a clue. NOT EVERYONE views posts in threaded manner. Many list
even the posts chronologically, so you idiot googletards and other
forms of the incorrect manner in which to reply need to bone up!

 

[John Fields]

I wouldn't mind. If I listened to all the previous posts, only the new
text, at the top, would be of interest. If I need my memory jogged I can
listen on and the proceeding post will become clear.

---
For some strange reason you seem to think that you're the only
person on the planet that matters, that you've traversed every
thread that's ever been posted, and that you're just sitting there,
waiting for the next top posted reply to come along.

The fact of the matter is that, often, the first post holds the crux
of the matter being discussed and, doing it your way, you'd have to
traverse the entire thread just to find out what the OP started.
---

Bottom posting on text-to-voice would be horrible. You have to skip through
all the quoted text, at the very least, in order to hear the new
information. If you don't know what's there, fine, but that's beside the
point since most posts arrive.

---
The point isn't that most posts arrive, it's that they should
generally arrive ordered temporally, with the earliest post being
the first on the list. A FIFO buffer, IOW. That post _would_ be
new information to someone who just started listening to the thread,
much like it would be new information to someone who just started
_reading_ the thread.

So, if you reply to this post will you in-line and bottom post in
order to preserve the continuity of the thread (as you have been
or will you top post out of spite?

 

[mc]

If Joe Bloe Usenet reader that strays into the group once in a two

month period looks at the post, he should be able to garner all the
information he needs in a chronological as it happened manner.

Won't he be using a threaded newsreader that already does this for him?

I'm curious. Those of you who object strenuously to top posting: What
newsreader software are you using, and what type of user interface? UNIX
console?

 

[mc]

The trouble with bottom posting is that you have to read the whole

No, you do not. If you are new to the thread, you SHOULD read the
entire post to get what it is about. If you are familiar with the
thread, it should be NO problem for your supposedly smarter than a
gorilla brain to SCROLL (a popular computer term) DOWN to the end of
the post, OR to the first area where a fresh response resides (for
interspersed responses), and keep right on reading new material...

Which requires extra effort, often many keystrokes.

If you had just conformed, you might have a clue by now. A large
portion of the world is STILL on dial up, and top poster posting
practices are among the most wasteful there are.

Getting the new information to the reader more quickly is a disservice to
dialup users?

Get a clue. NOT EVERYONE views posts in threaded manner. Many list
even the posts chronologically, so you idiot googletards and other
forms of the incorrect manner in which to reply need to bone up!

What newsreader software do you have in mind that is not threaded? I'm just
curious as to what you're actually using. Clearly, your newsreader user
interface is quite different from the last several that I've used.

 

[John Fields]

I think some attributions were scrambled, which is just as well under the
circumstances.


Polite circuit designer, too, from the look of it...

---
When the company warrants it, of course, but you must be wearing
blinders.

Weren't you the author of the:

"Whoever dishes out the first insult loses the debate "

message?

As if you were you an authority of some kind...

 

[Pooh Bear]

Won't he be using a threaded newsreader that already does this for him?

I'm curious. Those of you who object strenuously to top posting: What
newsreader software are you using,

Netscape 4.8

and what type of user interface? UNIX console?

W98SE

Graham

 

[Genome]

Indeed, however I notice that you have not delivered on your promises.

 

[Keith]

This is not the proper response.

You have to explain how you would race up to Judge Judy's desk and slap a
piece of paper on top of the docket that says.....

'MC is a **** Tard'

Judge Judy would throw DimBulb in the can for being a chronic idiot,
though even that stopped clock is correct once every few weeks.

 

[Tim Auton]

Won't he be using a threaded newsreader that already does this for him?

I'm curious. Those of you who object strenuously to top posting: What
newsreader software are you using, and what type of user interface? UNIX
console?

Forte Agent under Windows 2000. It's a GUI newsreader. It doesn't make
reading backwards any easier than it is on a UNIX terminal.


Tim

 

[quietguy]

One notes that the diehard bottom posters seem to have never read a book - and
you can understand why. By their way of doing things, before they could read
(say) page 145 they would have to re-read page 1, 2, 3, 4....... then to read
page 146 they would not be happy unitl they re-read page 1,2.....145

Strange people.

It is also interesting to note that it is always the bottom feeders that resort
to abuse - except for me of course when some bottom poster dipshit alters my
post

David - who doesn't abuse (usually) just describes

 

[quietguy]

Common John, you're a smart guy - use your logic

This is how the conversation would go reading bottom posted conversation

Hi John - how are today

HI John how are you today
Good thanks David

HI John how are you today
Good thanks David
How are you?

HI John how are you today
Good thanks David
How are you?
Good thanks John
How is your wife?

HI John how are you today
Good thanks David
How are you?
Good thanks John
How is your wife?

Get the picture?

Now - with top posting

Hi John - how are today

Good thanks David

How are you?

Good thanks John

See? You don't have to listen to the whole thing each time! You just listen to
the top bit - much more user friendly



John Fields wrote

But even if it weren't, just imagine listening to a text-to-voice
conversion of top posting.

Cheers

David

 

[Keith]

Common John, you're a smart guy - use your logic

This is how the conversation would go reading bottom posted conversation

No, a *Smart* guy would do sorta...

Hi John - how are today

How are you?


How is your wife?

Get the picture?

No. reductio absurdum doesn't play well in a group with pelople who tend
to think logically.

Now - with top posting

Works for simple conversations with simple people, I guess. For anything
more complex, infix posting works better than either postfix or prefix.

 

[mc]

*chuckle* Of course, if one's favorite song is "The Twelve Days of
Christmas"...


message