Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGletters
 

Hi Nickie,

*shrug* I guess it depends on the newsgroup or email list, the rules they
set up, how strictly or not those rules are supported, and the group of
people reading and posting to that group.

I don't think I've brought this issue up on this ng previously, but Mirjam's
request triggered the realization that I had been deleting many posts
without reading them simply because of posting responses at the bottom of
extensive quoted text.

Cheers

David

--
David R. Sky
http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/


On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, nickie{D} wrote:

Hi David,

I was intrigued by this and asked friends on another newsgroup. The best
reason they came up with for the convention of bottom-posting was the
unreliability of usenet in terms of message propogation. It is common to
receive messages out of order, for instance, and then if the message is
top-posted and the message to which it is replying is not there the person
reading it has no context and it becomes meaningless.

There is no corresponding argument where mailing lists are concerned I guess
as they are more consistent (perhaps with the exception of yahoo which can be
a bit sporadic) and good at delivering messages in the correct order.

nickie


David R. Sky wrote:
Funny how many posts this thread generated!!

[snip]

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
 

Getting messages out of order or not getting them at all has never been a
problem for me. So it's a nuisance to have to scroll through many lines of
quoted text which I have already seen to get to the message. Those who have
missed a previous message aren't left in the dark by top-posting because
they can scroll down to see it. It's really not meaningless unless it's a
"void-post" with no quoted text.

--
Jan in MN

"nickie{D}" wrote ...
Hi David,

I was intrigued by this and asked friends on another newsgroup. The best
reason they came up with for the convention of bottom-posting was the
unreliability of usenet in terms of message propogation. It is common to
receive messages out of order, for instance, and then if the message is
top-posted and the message to which it is replying is not there the person
reading it has no context and it becomes meaningless.

There is no corresponding argument where mailing lists are concerned I
guess as they are more consistent (perhaps with the exception of yahoo
which can be a bit sporadic) and good at delivering messages in the
correct order.

nickie


David R. Sky wrote:
Funny how many posts this thread generated!!

[snip]

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
 

Nickie David is correct i strated this request ,,,,,
as to Netiquette requirements ,,,,, we should do what fits most of us
,,,,
mirjam

@viper.wapvi.bc.ca wrote:

Hi Nickie,

*shrug* I guess it depends on the newsgroup or email list, the rules they
set up, how strictly or not those rules are supported, and the group of
people reading and posting to that group.

I don't think I've brought this issue up on this ng previously, but Mirjam's
request triggered the realization that I had been deleting many posts
without reading them simply because of posting responses at the bottom of
extensive quoted text.

Cheers

David

--
David R. Sky
http://www.shellworld.net/~davidsky/


On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, nickie{D} wrote:

Hi David,

I was intrigued by this and asked friends on another newsgroup. The best
reason they came up with for the convention of bottom-posting was the
unreliability of usenet in terms of message propogation. It is common to
receive messages out of order, for instance, and then if the message is
top-posted and the message to which it is replying is not there the person
reading it has no context and it becomes meaningless.

There is no corresponding argument where mailing lists are concerned I guess
as they are more consistent (perhaps with the exception of yahoo which can be
a bit sporadic) and good at delivering messages in the correct order.

nickie


David R. Sky wrote:
Funny how many posts this thread generated!!

[snip]

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
 

Thank you JAN ,,,,
you grabbed this from my aching fingers ,,,
mirjam


Getting messages out of order or not getting them at all has never been a
problem for me. So it's a nuisance to have to scroll through many lines of
quoted text which I have already seen to get to the message. Those who have
missed a previous message aren't left in the dark by top-posting because
they can scroll down to see it. It's really not meaningless unless it's a
"void-post" with no quoted text.

--
Jan in MN

"nickie{D}" wrote ...
Hi David,

I was intrigued by this and asked friends on another newsgroup. The best
reason they came up with for the convention of bottom-posting was the
unreliability of usenet in terms of message propogation. It is common to
receive messages out of order, for instance, and then if the message is
top-posted and the message to which it is replying is not there the person
reading it has no context and it becomes meaningless.

There is no corresponding argument where mailing lists are concerned I
guess as they are more consistent (perhaps with the exception of yahoo
which can be a bit sporadic) and good at delivering messages in the
correct order.

nickie


David R. Sky wrote:
Funny how many posts this thread generated!!

[snip]

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGletters
 

Mirjam Bruck-Cohen wrote:
Thank you JAN ,,,,
you grabbed this from my aching fingers ,,,

I don't do just one thing -- if I am just quoting a tiny bit, I
bottom-post, if I am addressing multiple parts of a previous post, I
intersperse quoted material and my comments, and if I am quoting a
larger segment for reference purposes, I top-post.

But my first online experience was with hobbyist bulletin board systems
on a 2400 bps modem, and my habits were formed at that speed, where it
takes a LOOOONG time to even download text, so thrifty quoting was the
rule of the day, and even on my first Usenet access on someone's Unix
box at the same 2400 bps speed, if you quoted more than some percentage,
you'd get a warning message saying something to the effect that you are
taking up a lot of bandwidth by repeating previous messages, which can
be considered rude, and do you really want to do that?

--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGletters
 

LOL - I'm finding it fascinating how different different newsgroups can
be! The other one I asked about it in is strongly of the opinion that
top-posting is the work of the devil!

Guess as long as I remember which group is which things will work out
just fine. ;-)

nickie

Mirjam Bruck-Cohen wrote:
Thank you JAN ,,,,
you grabbed this from my aching fingers ,,,
mirjam



Getting messages out of order or not getting them at all has never been a
problem for me. So it's a nuisance to have to scroll through many lines of
quoted text which I have already seen to get to the message. Those who have
missed a previous message aren't left in the dark by top-posting because
they can scroll down to see it. It's really not meaningless unless it's a
"void-post" with no quoted text.

--
Jan in MN

"nickie{D}" wrote ...

Hi David,

I was intrigued by this and asked friends on another newsgroup. The best
reason they came up with for the convention of bottom-posting was the
unreliability of usenet in terms of message propogation. It is common to
receive messages out of order, for instance, and then if the message is
top-posted and the message to which it is replying is not there the person
reading it has no context and it becomes meaningless.

There is no corresponding argument where mailing lists are concerned I
guess as they are more consistent (perhaps with the exception of yahoo
which can be a bit sporadic) and good at delivering messages in the
correct order.

nickie


David R. Sky wrote:

Funny how many posts this thread generated!!


[snip]

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
 

"nickie{D}" wrote in message
...
LOL - I'm finding it fascinating how different different newsgroups can
be! The other one I asked about it in is strongly of the opinion that
top-posting is the work of the devil!

snippage

Actually, in some people's opinion you aren't far from the truth. BG
Outlook Express (Microsoft) is the only email client of which I am aware
that doesn't automatically insert the reply below the message, and has no
option to change this setting. Ergo, the evil empire at Microsoft has
determined top posting is the desired way to reply.
The new email client in Vista, Windows Mail, does give you the option of
adding a reply at the top or bottom of a message.
The logic behind bottom posting is you are replying to a previous message,
pages are read from top to bottom, not the other way around.
DA

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
 

"DA" don't live wrote in message
...
snipped
The logic behind bottom posting is you are replying to a previous message,
pages are read from top to bottom, not the other way around.
DA

That's exactly the way I look at it. I read from top to bottom, therefore
that's the way I post responses. However I do try to snip bits that I'm not
responding to... I know I sometimes leave the entire text, but that's
because I have often seen responses with absolutely everything from the
original post gone, and it's very confusing as to what it's about at times.

*hugs*
Gemini

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGletters
 

I was away for a few days and I got so tired of having to scroll scroll
scroll to read a reply of only a few words that I gave up and marked the
group as all read. If I have been following a thread, I really don't
need to reread each entry every time to keep up. And really, how many
posts here are long and complicated? It's basically chatting. With a
top post, if you WANT to, you can go back and reread.

Personally, I plan to honor the requests of those who have very valid
reasons for preferring top posting.

BB

The logic behind bottom posting is you are replying to a previous
message, pages are read from top to bottom, not the other way around.
DA

Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
 

"David R. Sky" wrote in message
. bc.ca...

I don't think I've brought this issue up on this ng previously, but
Mirjam's
request triggered the realization that I had been deleting many posts
without reading them simply because of posting responses at the bottom of
extensive quoted text.
Cheers
David

I totally agree with David & Mirjam. It's ridiculous to post a 2 or 3 word
or one sentence reply at the bottom of a huge long post. Edit, edit, edit.
I even edit out the extra lines between salutations & names if necessary.
And I have been known to top post. (shrug)

Do everyone a favour and clean up your posts!
Shelagh