OT - Top/bottom posting

Hello,
On 2-Feb-2004, Tedd Belle wrote:

one thing is for sure, top/bottom posting threads take the cake when
it comes to long-lived subjects on usenet

But these threads do serve one highly useful purpose. They let the
intransigent "Do it my way or you're a moron!" crowd show themselves
in one compact group - regardless of their posting preference. Makes
weeding out the twits so much easier. G

Take care,
Carmen

I prefer top posting for any message longer than a couple of lines.

I read the current post and if I'm interested I make the 'huge'
effort to page down and read the original.

PJ



On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:32:14 GMT, BJPruett
wrote:

I certainly agree.
Barbara

Chris Taylor Jr wrote:

Yes if you read a lot of newsgroups and more importantly read LOTS of long
threads bottom posting is just maddening. incredible hard to follow
conversations and a huge time waster. almost always "breaks up" the natural
flow of conversation.

top posting is much better for the reader.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

"David Rasmussen" wrote in message
...
JC Der Koenig wrote:
Caring about top/bottom posting is like caring if someone is wearing
brown
or black shoes.


Not if you use newsgroups a lot, and if the discussions there are more
structured. Then top posting is hell. In this group, it probably doesn't
make a huge difference.

/David

Nicely stated. I don't even have anything to add. I'll just second that
sentiment.

Lorraine

"Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in message
news:58006$401dd2d3$4456f817$19718@allthenewsgroup s.com...
Yes if you read a lot of newsgroups and more importantly read LOTS of long
threads bottom posting is just maddening. incredible hard to follow
conversations and a huge time waster. almost always "breaks up" the
natural
flow of conversation.

top posting is much better for the reader.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

"David Rasmussen" wrote in message
...
JC Der Koenig wrote:
Caring about top/bottom posting is like caring if someone is wearing
brown
or black shoes.


Not if you use newsgroups a lot, and if the discussions there are more
structured. Then top posting is hell. In this group, it probably doesn't
make a huge difference.

/David

Chris Taylor Jr wrote:

top posting is much better for the reader.

only if the reader is a moron.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:30:59 GMT, "TavliGal"
wrote:

Bottom posters = Bottom feeders.

Obsidian
Hi there,
Someone was telling a person the directions for changing the settings from
top posting to bottom posting.
Can you please tell us again how to do that? For the life of me I can't
find it in my Options. I'm using IE 5.5
Thanks!

Obsidian
Hi there,
Someone was telling a person the directions for changing the settings
from
top posting to bottom posting.
Can you please tell us again how to do that? For the life of me I can't
find it in my Options. I'm using IE 5.5
Thanks!
Obsidian wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:30:59 GMT, "TavliGal"
wrote:

Bottom posters = Bottom feeders.


Actually I think that is the other way around.
Bottom posters are an interest in the conversation and show a certain
respect and consideration to it.
Top posters feel that their time is more important than everyone elses
and/or are admittedly lazy.
The latter seems much more the traits I think of as bottom feeding.

--
...´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸..´ ..´¨¨))
((¸¸..´ ...´ GARTH -:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸..´*

If reading top posts is easier for me, why is it harder for you?

In ,
Hanging Chad stated
|
| Actually I think that is the other way around.
| Bottom posters are an interest in the conversation and show a certain
| respect and consideration to it.
| Top posters feel that their time is more important than everyone elses
| and/or are admittedly lazy.
| The latter seems much more the traits I think of as bottom feeding.
|
| --
| ..´¨¨)) -:¦:-
| ¸..´ ..´¨¨))
| ((¸¸..´ ...´ GARTH -:¦:-
| -:¦:- ((¸¸..´*

Chris Taylor Jr wrote:
Yes if you read a lot of newsgroups and more importantly read LOTS of long
threads bottom posting is just maddening. incredible hard to follow
conversations and a huge time waster. almost always "breaks up" the natural
flow of conversation.

top posting is much better for the reader.


Bull. That only happens if people don't edit correctly. You are not
supposed to just write your stuff at the bottom without removing any of
the stuff that the person you are answering wrote. Otherwise it _is_
maddening. Please read just the must superficial stuff about the
subject, and I'm sure you'll understand. It's not just that several
million people have gone insane all of a sudden.

/David

Tedd Belle wrote:
I agree with Chris .... for the vast majority of times, a reader wants
to pop into the top to see what is fresh ...makes perfect sense....
rather than wade, wade, wade, again, again and again... IF a given top
post needs more clarification, THEN, the reader can scroll down... and
this, of course, is required a very small % of the time.


But there is no wading if you edit the stuff away that you're not
answering directly to, which is what you're supposed to!
Of course it is annoying to scroll for 5 pages of stuff you already
read, just to find "I agree" at the bottom. That's _not_ the idea.
Remove everything you're replying to, except the directly addressed
parts. And post below. This is not Jeopardy.

- Robert C. Atkins

- Who wrote "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution"?

And please, if you want to have an opinion about top posting vs. bottom
posting, please read up on the reasons and arguments.

/David

warp wrote:
Not to fan this flame too much, but (Usenet political correctness aside)
bottom posting is for those who love to scroll and scroll and scroll to
eventually get to the reply...


Not if you edit correctly...

/David