Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?

Fred

"Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote in message
news:efqdnc38XtrQFKzdRVn-hw@centurytel.net...
> Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
> practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?

No big, really, but...

The only thing worse than top posting is quoting a whole lengthy message to
post a quick comment at the bottom.  This is especially true if the comment
is "STOP TOP POSTING!".

I think that people who won't take the time to quote selectively should go
ahead and top-post as the next-best alternative, or don't quote the original
message at all.

Fred Marshall wrote:

> Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
> practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?
> 
> Fred

Fred,

I see a place for both top and bottom posting. When adding to an ongoing
discussion, appending ones words to the end makes sense. The reader sees
the points in chronological order. When commenting on a thread as a
whole, top posting leaves the remaining words as a footnote, for
reference. For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians  with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:40318c2a$0$3106$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Fred Marshall wrote:
>
> > Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
> > practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?
> >
> > Fred
>
> Fred,
>
> I see a place for both top and bottom posting. When adding to an ongoing
> discussion, appending ones words to the end makes sense. The reader sees
> the points in chronological order. When commenting on a thread as a
> whole, top posting leaves the remaining words as a footnote, for
> reference.

Jerry,

OK - we agree...

Fred

Jerry Avins wrote:

> For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
> and Brobdingnagians  with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.
> 

But what remains a practical issue is trimming.  Always a 
problem with this group of lazy bones.


Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no 
simpler."

                                              A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:c0sd0103tp@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> > For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
> > and Brobdingnagians  with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.
> >
>
> But what remains a practical issue is trimming.  Always a
> problem with this group of lazy bones.

Well, this is one of the better groups with regard to newsgroup etiquette
that I subscribe to. What really annoys me (with regards to newsgroups) are
people that post with a 4-line automated preamble, then their one or two
words of gospel, their name, and lastly the maximum 4-line sig. The amount
of data in these posts can be as little as 2.5% (sadly I've just worked this
out). I could go on, but I'll leave that for another time.

Incidentally, should it be "what really annoys me ARE people..." or "what
really annoys me IS people..." ?

All in favour myself.

You don't have to page down through the mire of previous
quotations, most of which have been repeated ad nauseam,
to reach the new material.

If you're in a hurry, then you don't have time to page down anyway,
and your effort in bottom posting may be passed over unseen.

If you're following a thread, then most of the history is annoying
because you remember it anyway.

If you're being so silly as to join a thread in the middle, then the
history stuff is there for you to read, but it's not forced onto you.

"Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote in message
news:efqdnc38XtrQFKzdRVn-hw@centurytel.net...
> Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
> practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?

What really annoys me is thalks having nothing to do with DSP ...


"Graeme" <graeme@hotmail.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:c0si1d$19vedq$1@ID-154333.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
> news:c0sd0103tp@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > Jerry Avins wrote:
> >
> > > For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
> > > and Brobdingnagians  with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.
> > >
> >
> > But what remains a practical issue is trimming.  Always a
> > problem with this group of lazy bones.
>
> Well, this is one of the better groups with regard to newsgroup etiquette
> that I subscribe to. What really annoys me (with regards to newsgroups)
are
> people that post with a 4-line automated preamble, then their one or two
> words of gospel, their name, and lastly the maximum 4-line sig. The amount
> of data in these posts can be as little as 2.5% (sadly I've just worked
this
> out). I could go on, but I'll leave that for another time.
>
> Incidentally, should it be "what really annoys me ARE people..." or "what
> really annoys me IS people..." ?
>
>

All depends on your POV, some people enjoy the psychological
self-flagellation of an old text based interface, and are just as annoyed at
having to scroll UP through history as you are to scroll down through
history.  Can't imagine it would be too hard to write a rule based script to
convert post to your particular pet endian-ness, if you're a fetishist about
such things.  What annoys me more is people like the OP who feel it
necessary to comment on such things and people like me who feel it necessary
to reply. :o)

Cheers,
Alf.

"Airy R. Bean" <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c0sk4d$1b5o2d$1@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de...
> All in favour myself.
>
> You don't have to page down through the mire of previous
> quotations, most of which have been repeated ad nauseam,
> to reach the new material.
>
> If you're in a hurry, then you don't have time to page down anyway,
> and your effort in bottom posting may be passed over unseen.
>
> If you're following a thread, then most of the history is annoying
> because you remember it anyway.
>
> If you're being so silly as to join a thread in the middle, then the
> history stuff is there for you to read, but it's not forced onto you.
>
> "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote in message
> news:efqdnc38XtrQFKzdRVn-hw@centurytel.net...
> > Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
> > practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 31/01/2004

Bob Cain wrote:

> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
>> and Brobdingnagians  with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.
>>
> 
> But what remains a practical issue is trimming.  Always a problem with 
> this group of lazy bones.
> 
> 
> Bob

I tend to cut gingerly. Laziness is only indirectly a factor. I've been 
accused, justly on occasion, of snipping the germane lines. The effort 
to avoid that -- seeing the message from every conceivable viewpoint -- 
dissuades me. Modems have come a long way since we did usenet at 1200 
baud. The reasons for snipping are fewer now.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in 
news:c0sd0103tp@enews3.newsguy.com:

Sometimes I top post where the thread is long and already repeated a 
dozen times


> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
>> and Brobdingnagians  with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.
>> 
> 

Snippets are nice to respond to a specific point and keep the context. 
Jerry, did you really know how to spell "Brobdingnagians" without looking 
it up?


> But what remains a practical issue is trimming.  Always a 
> problem with this group of lazy bones.
> 
> 
> Bob

As the thread takes a life of its own, I think the bottom helps preserve 
the flow of the conversation, but I agree that trimming is helpful in 
this case.

Thanks for letting me waste your time reading this drivel and making you 
use the scroll bar. I'm sure glad this is a friendly group ;-)

-- 
Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff
Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com

Al Clark wrote:

> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in 
> news:c0sd0103tp@enews3.newsguy.com:
> 
> Sometimes I top post where the thread is long and already repeated a 
> dozen times

   ...

> Snippets are nice to respond to a specific point and keep the context. 
> Jerry, did you really know how to spell "Brobdingnagians" without looking 
> it up?

I looked it up to check -- Google is quick! -- but It turned out that I
had gotten it right (this time).

   ...

> As the thread takes a life of its own, I think the bottom helps preserve 
> the flow of the conversation, but I agree that trimming is helpful in 
> this case.
> 
> Thanks for letting me waste your time reading this drivel and making you 
> use the scroll bar. I'm sure glad this is a friendly group ;-)

When I believe the meat is  only at the bottom and the bottom is a long
way off, I go there with <ctrl>+end.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
around or jump into the middle of a thread.  Bottom posting will annoy
that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the bottom
of a post nearly instantly anyway.  Choose who you prefer to annoy and
post away.


IMHO. YMMV.
-- 
Ron Nicholson   rhn AT nicholson DOT com   http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ 
#include <canonical.disclaimer>        // only my own opinions, etc.

To summarize:

1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.

I hope that clears it up!  ;-)

"jim" <sjedging@mwt.net> wrote in message news:4032AFEE.4214D210@mwt.net...
>
>
> "Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." wrote:
> >
> > Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
> > around or jump into the middle of a thread.  Bottom posting will annoy
> > that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
> > system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the
bottom
> > of a post nearly instantly anyway.  Choose who you prefer to annoy and
> > post away.
> >
>
> I agree with Jerry I would prefer that people top post and leave the
> original message at the bottom as reference if they are just making a
> general comment. Snipping the entire original message and commenting in
> a vacuum is far more annoying than top posting or bottom posting.
>
> -jim
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." wrote:
> 
> Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
> around or jump into the middle of a thread.  Bottom posting will annoy
> that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
> system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the bottom
> of a post nearly instantly anyway.  Choose who you prefer to annoy and
> post away.
> 

	I agree with Jerry I would prefer that people top post and leave the
original message at the bottom as reference if they are just making a
general comment. Snipping the entire original message and commenting in
a vacuum is far more annoying than top posting or bottom posting.

-jim


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jon Harris wrote:

> To summarize:
> 
> 1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
> 2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
> 3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
> 
> I hope that clears it up!  ;-)
> 
> "jim" <sjedging@mwt.net> wrote in message news:4032AFEE.4214D210@mwt.net...
> 
>>
>>"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." wrote:
>>
>>>Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
>>>around or jump into the middle of a thread.  Bottom posting will annoy
>>>that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
>>>system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the
> 
> bottom

Wanna bet? :-)

> 
>>>of a post nearly instantly anyway.  Choose who you prefer to annoy and
>>>post away.
>>>
>>
>>I agree with Jerry I would prefer that people top post and leave the
>>original message at the bottom as reference if they are just making a
>>general comment. Snipping the entire original message and commenting in
>>a vacuum is far more annoying than top posting or bottom posting.
>>
>>-jim
>>
>>
>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> 
> 
> 

John Aderseen wrote:

> What really annoys me is thalks having nothing to do with DSP ...
> 
> 

So do I - and I frequently use this "ignore thread" command which my 
news reader provides.

However, things which have to do with the fellows of this group,
are important - IMHO.
Therefore I followed this thread, trying to catch ideas/portions of 
the spirit of the posters. 
It's like while talking about the weather, we listen to the tone 
indicating the mood of the other person...

My opinion to the topic:
If my response is specific to one item which the OP mentioned,
I usually keep the whole content and insert my contribution where
it seems appropriate.
If I respond to an item which can stand for itself (to my opinion),
I cut away all the rest which seems unnecessary.

If I cannot locate a position where I should insert my answer,
I respond by top posting.

What I normally don't do is append my contribution to the end.
It's convenient if I can see the new contribution in the first 
screen (maybe 30..40 lines).
If the thread grows, it would happen that the new part falls below 
and I'd have to scroll first. In this case,
I'd prefer that people would either top post or cut - and I would.

Bernhard 


-- 
before sending to the above email-address:
replace deadspam.com by foerstergroup.de

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0u632$1bhj82$1@ID-210375.news.uni-berlin.de...
> To summarize:
>
> 1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
> 2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
> 3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
>
> I hope that clears it up!  ;-)
>

Astonishing - I bet this is the only group with a thread containing
top, bottom and mid postings, and nobody has blown a gasket yet!

Regards
    Ian

;-)

Fred Marshall wrote:

> Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
> practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?
> 

A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Paul

Paul Russell wrote:

>Fred Marshall wrote:
>
>> Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately.  In view of past
>> practice, I find it just a bit confusing.  Any similar reactions?
>> 
>
>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>

You've done it now.

Bean will doubtless be along in a minute to give his standard lecture
on why top-posting is acceptable.


-- 
from
RVMJ
(dot) 99g (at) BTinternet (dot) com

Is this top posting, or are you talking about dates?  Probably
this, but if you don't like, you have a space bar, yes?  Use 
it.

It's absurd to have to "defend" this sort of thing since ONLY
newbies do it differently, but since I like to stamp out blissful
ignorance every odd minute of every odd day of every odd leap
year, here you go.

For one thing, posting UNDER old news is a waste of effort.  For
another, posting UNDER a mountain of old news makes for something
that will never, ever be seen in googlenews (history of usenet), 
since that only shows the first 50 or so lines, without taking
extra effort.  And really, talking about this is not worth it.
I'll be back in about 8 years to stamp out some more.

RVMJ 99g Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:57:10 +0000]:
 >You've done it now.
 >on why top-posting is acceptable.

-- 
 40th Floor - Software  @  http://40th.com/
 GT40 encryption-database toolkit

hel@40th.com () wrote:

>For one thing, posting UNDER old news is a waste of effort. 

So is top posting, for the same reason.

>.For another, posting UNDER a mountain of old news makes for something
>that will never, ever be seen in googlenews (history of usenet), 
>since that only shows the first 50 or so lines, without taking
>extra effort.  

What sort of person has their postings archived? Sheesh!

As for effort, perhaps you'd better lie down in a dark room!

>And really, talking about this is not worth it.
>I'll be back in about 8 years to stamp out some more.

Whoopee-doo. Have a nice time.

-- 
from
RVMJ
(dot) 99g (at) BTinternet (dot) com

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:24:14 +0000, RVMJ 99g <Me@privacy.net> wrote:

>hel@40th.com () wrote:
>
>>For one thing, posting UNDER old news is a waste of effort. 
>
>So is top posting, for the same reason.
>
>>.For another, posting UNDER a mountain of old news makes for something
>>that will never, ever be seen in googlenews (history of usenet), 
>>since that only shows the first 50 or so lines, without taking
>>extra effort.  
>
>What sort of person has their postings archived? Sheesh!
>
>As for effort, perhaps you'd better lie down in a dark room!
>
>>And really, talking about this is not worth it.
>>I'll be back in about 8 years to stamp out some more.
>
>Whoopee-doo. Have a nice time.

I did a google search under news groups on my name and there are
posting's archived from 1997. Its Interesting, stuff there I
completely forgot I wrote.

I never knew what top or bottom posting was until I read this thread,
I would guess this is the proper way to post a response. Under
paragraphs and paragraphs of earlier posts. That way we can have pages
of old posts to reread to get to the jest of the new addition.  Always
something new to learn on the proper use of usenet. I used to top post
too sorry for the mis use of usenet. I usually fine if I have been
reading the thread, I am up to speed on the replies to the original
question, but for the new reader who comes in the middle of the thread
after passing it by for a few rounds then bottom posting is
beneficial.


Gary K8IZ
Washington State Resident
Registered Linux User # 312991

The advantage of top-posting is that if you are following a thread
regularly, then you are not forced to wade through oft-repeated
and tedious reminders of what you have seen so many times before,
but, on the rare occasions when something slips your mind, you
can page down to it.

Also, when following threads where otherwise the bottom-posters
would have followed their wont for posting without clipping, you
don't have to resort to page downing, you can just keep nexting to browse
through the thread.

"Gary P. Fiber" <g.fiber@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1hdu3018nm3pj3q65tms39ugruurqh0k6b@4ax.com...
> I never knew what top or bottom posting was until I read this thread,
> I would guess this is the proper way to post a response. Under
> paragraphs and paragraphs of earlier posts. That way we can have pages
> of old posts to reread to get to the jest of the new addition.

Yay- that's a relief to me too ; my editor leaves the insert fllashing
wibbly thing at the top of all the typing and I hardly ever remember to push
the down button. Glad nobody really cares.
Mike
"Ian Buckner" <Ian_Buckner@agilent.com> wrote in message
news:1077094897.8346@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
>
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c0u632$1bhj82$1@ID-210375.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > To summarize:
> >
> > 1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
> > 2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
> > 3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
> >
> > I hope that clears it up!  ;-)
> >
>
> Astonishing - I bet this is the only group with a thread containing
> top, bottom and mid postings, and nobody has blown a gasket yet!
>
> Regards
>     Ian
>
> ;-)
>
>

Gary P. Fiber wrote:

>I never knew what top or bottom posting was until I read this thread

Well, we all live and learn, mostly.

>I would guess this is the proper way to post a response.

There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
part of the responder.

> Under
>paragraphs and paragraphs of earlier posts. That way we can have pages
>of old posts to reread to get to the jest of the new addition. 

You gist, of course. Both top-posting and bottom-posting lack the
continuity given by thoughtful trimming, with points answered in turn.

HTH


-- 
from
RVMJ
(dot) 99g (at) BTinternet (dot) com

Airy R. Bean wrote:

>The advantage of top-posting is that if you are following a thread
>regularly, then you are not forced to wade through oft-repeated
>and tedious reminders of what you have seen so many times before,
>but, on the rare occasions when something slips your mind, you
>can page down to it.
>
>Also, when following threads where otherwise the bottom-posters
>would have followed their wont for posting without clipping, you
>don't have to resort to page downing, you can just keep nexting to browse
>through the thread.

See my response to Gary on this topic. Note that the first part of
your second paragraph applies with equal vigour to your first
paragraph, thus rubbishing your own argument in one neat move.

Well Done!

-- 
from
RVMJ
(dot) 99g (at) BTinternet (dot) com

I've seen a lot of instances of both in other groups, plus the occasional
posting where replies are interspersed with previous paragraphs.  I've also
seen users ostracized for not snipping.  Mostly, I've seen top posting.  One
gets used to reading whole threads backwards if it is necessary to catch up.
But overall, I'm glad to have seen this thread because I had never heard the
terms "top post" or "bottom post" before.  Do you suppose the Federal
Government should get involved because we have failed to regulate ourselves?
Bob White

"Mike Yarwood" <mpyarwood@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c1nfeh$d94$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Yay- that's a relief to me too ; my editor leaves the insert fllashing
> wibbly thing at the top of all the typing and I hardly ever remember to
push
> the down button. Glad nobody really cares.
> Mike
> "Ian Buckner" <Ian_Buckner@agilent.com> wrote in message
> news:1077094897.8346@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> >
> > "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c0u632$1bhj82$1@ID-210375.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > To summarize:
> > >
> > > 1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
> > > 2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
> > > 3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
> > >
> > > I hope that clears it up!  ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Astonishing - I bet this is the only group with a thread containing
> > top, bottom and mid postings, and nobody has blown a gasket yet!
> >
> > Regards
> >     Ian
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >
>
>

RVMJ 99g wrote:


> 
> There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
> concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
> intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
> you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
> part of the responder.

Which is why it is unlikely to be employed by a lot of 
people who feel entitled to the extra effort that simple top 
or bottom replies impose on all who read them.


Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no 
simpler."

                                              A. Einstein

In article <c1o32a0313e@enews2.newsguy.com>,
Bob Cain  <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>RVMJ 99g wrote:
>> There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
>> concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
>> intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
>> you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
>> part of the responder.
>
>Which is why it is unlikely to be employed by a lot of 
>people who feel entitled to the extra effort that simple top 
>or bottom replies impose on all who read them.

How soon we forget that a significant percentage of people on the net
do not have fast connections and have to pay for their connect time.

....but our time is so much more valuable that we can just make those
poor wretches wait for pages of redundant quotes to download before they
can see our valuable pearls of wisdom...

....then flame then into toast for complaining.  The net is such a
polite setting.

<ob dsp>
Does anyone know what if and what kind of DSP chip those cable modem
and DSL boxes, which allow many of us fast net accesss, might use?
</ob>

IMHO. YMMV.
-- 
Ron Nicholson   rhn AT nicholson DOT com   http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ 
#include <canonical.disclaimer>        // only my own opinions, etc.

"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:c1od42$ljg$1@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <c1o32a0313e@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> Bob Cain  <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> >RVMJ 99g wrote:
> >> There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
> >> concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
> >> intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
> >> you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
> >> part of the responder.
> >
> >Which is why it is unlikely to be employed by a lot of
> >people who feel entitled to the extra effort that simple top
> >or bottom replies impose on all who read them.
>
> How soon we forget that a significant percentage of people on the net
> do not have fast connections and have to pay for their connect time.

Is that really true?  Almost all dial-up services these days are either
unlimited time or many more hours than the typical person really uses.  For
reading text-only Usenet, I consider 56K "fast".

> ...but our time is so much more valuable that we can just make those
> poor wretches wait for pages of redundant quotes to download before they
> can see our valuable pearls of wisdom...

On my newsreader, you can't see any part of a message, or scroll down, until
the entire message is downloaded.  So it's a moot point.

I can summarize all the points made to date as following:

1. Top posting is better in some situations (e.g. when quickly/actively
monitoring a thread for new messages, for the way it is archived in Google)
2. Bottom posting is better in some situations (e.g. when you want to read
an entire thread in sequence/coming in late)
3. No matter which one you use, someone will complain!

Jon Harris wrote:
> 
> I can summarize all the points made to date as following:
> 
> 1. Top posting is better in some situations (e.g. when quickly/actively
> monitoring a thread for new messages, for the way it is archived in Google)
> 2. Bottom posting is better in some situations (e.g. when you want to read
> an entire thread in sequence/coming in late)
> 3. No matter which one you use, someone will complain!
> 

That strikes me as a summary of the points you heard rather 
than the ones that were made.


Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no 
simpler."

                                              A. Einstein

At the risk of extending this already long and OT thread, I'll bite: what
did I miss?  I don't see how I can be too far off base by stating that both
methods have advantages and disadvantages and proponents and detractors.

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:c1p2lg01mdm@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Jon Harris wrote:
> >
> > I can summarize all the points made to date as following:
> >
> > 1. Top posting is better in some situations (e.g. when quickly/actively
> > monitoring a thread for new messages, for the way it is archived in
Google)
> > 2. Bottom posting is better in some situations (e.g. when you want to
read
> > an entire thread in sequence/coming in late)
> > 3. No matter which one you use, someone will complain!
>
> That strikes me as a summary of the points you heard rather
> than the ones that were made.

Jon Harris wrote:

> At the risk of extending this already long and OT thread, I'll bite: what
> did I miss?  I don't see how I can be too far off base by stating that both
> methods have advantages and disadvantages and proponents and detractors.

A couple of us indicated that neither solution is optimal 
for the reader.  What flows best is to trim what is 
unnecessasary and to intersperse responses among what 
remains as appropriate, with the response following the 
point being responded to.

If there is only one point being responded to, such as in 
this one, then its a trimmed form of bottom posting.

For some time I've just been skipping over posts that go on 
at length with unnecessasary quotes to get to the (usually 
tiny) meat of the response at the bottom or those that jump 
right in at the top with a bunch of stuff for which context 
hasn't been established.


Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no 
simpler."

                                              A. Einstein

OK, that's fair.  So we have 3 options: top, interspersed/middle (with
trimming), and bottom.

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:c21a390snh@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Jon Harris wrote:
>
> > At the risk of extending this already long and OT thread, I'll bite:
what
> > did I miss?  I don't see how I can be too far off base by stating that
both
> > methods have advantages and disadvantages and proponents and detractors.
>
> A couple of us indicated that neither solution is optimal
> for the reader.  What flows best is to trim what is
> unnecessasary and to intersperse responses among what
> remains as appropriate, with the response following the
> point being responded to.
>
> If there is only one point being responded to, such as in
> this one, then its a trimmed form of bottom posting.
>
> For some time I've just been skipping over posts that go on
> at length with unnecessasary quotes to get to the (usually
> tiny) meat of the response at the bottom or those that jump
> right in at the top with a bunch of stuff for which context
> hasn't been established.