If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Please could you all Delete part of those LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG letters
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Create a Mailing list and you could be Blessed with $200,000+, If not please Delete This | [email protected] | Beads | 0 | June 30th 05 03:56 AM |
Ooops. Delete accident AND 6X6 | Kira Dirlik | Yarn | 0 | November 19th 04 02:37 AM |
Ooops. Delete accident AND 6X6 | Kira Dirlik | Yarn | 0 | November 19th 04 02:37 AM |
somewhat OT...delete button wanted | Boohoo1971 | Needlework | 8 | April 25th 04 02:05 PM |
Strange problem (part rant, part humor) | georg | Yarn | 16 | November 4th 03 11:40 PM |