quote:

---

> A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
> Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
> time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
> contribute anything worth your time.
>
> Q: What can I do about this?
>
> A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
> accustomed to following a logical progression of written
> comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
> just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
> without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
> comments. Often their contribution is useless.
>
> Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?
>
> A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.
>
> Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?
>
> A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
> rather than below it.
>
> Q: What is "top posting"?
>

quote:

---

>Caesar Romano wrote:
>
>Egg-zackly.

quote:

---

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee <ghen@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>

quote:

---

> For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
> posting makes reading the thread much much easier.

quote:

---

> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> <top posting corrected - go to the bottom>

quote:

---

>
> On 07/01/05 11:30 am G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into the
> ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, I refuse to scroll down to read the response to the message I have
> just read. I want to read it straight away.
>
> Perce
>

quote:

---

> No, I refuse to scroll down to read the response to the message I have
> just read. I want to read it straight away.
>
> Perce

quote:

---

> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>
> <top posting corrected - go to the bottom>
>
>
>
> Oh bullshit. You read the last post and you'll read this one.

quote:

---

> IT'S THE POST CONTENT, NOT THE FORMAT, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.
>

quote:

---

>
> "G Henslee" <ghen@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:3ilaenFm8mnvU1@individual.net...
>
>
>
> read both parts.......
>
>
> Sometimes you just have to
>

quote:

---

> Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
>
> <top-posting correected - go to the bottom>
>
>
> No, I refuse to scroll up to the top to read the blah blah... ;-)

quote:

---

>
>
> "G Henslee" <ghen@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:3ild79Fm36scU3@individual.net...
>
>
>
> What if i was to
>
>
> do it like this???

quote:

---

> The problem is not being able to adapt.
>
> Or ...... do I need to re-post this entire thread three times because
> everyone else did?

quote:

---

>
> Like I said. Evolution will take hold eventually.
>
>

quote:

---

> For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
> posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
> beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.
>
>
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:57:57 -0700, G Henslee <ghen@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>

quote:

---

> Is that when you'll learn to quote text in your replies?

quote:

---

> deans@wdeans.com wrote:
>
> And you're stump stupid. But nobody's yelling it at the top of their

quote:

---

> Only 90%? I prefer people that top post. It does make it easier to
> continue to follow a thread...
>

quote:

---

>
> "G Henslee" <ghen@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:3ilctoFm36scU1@individual.net...
>
>
>
> Who appointed you Net-Nanny?
>
> Or is it Net-Ninny?
>

quote:

---

> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

quote:

---

> A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
> Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
> time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
> contribute anything worth your time.
>
> Q: What can I do about this?
>
> A: Some newsgroups by their nature attract people who are not
> accustomed to following a logical progression of written
> comments. They either lack the intelligence to do so or are
> just too lazy. They read and reply to only the last comment
> without any concern for, or attempt at, understanding previous
> comments. Often their contribution is useless.
>
> Q: Then why are there some newsgroups with a lot of top posters?
>
> A: Because it destroys the logical flow of a thread of comments.
>
> Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?
>
> A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
> rather than below it.
>
> Q: What is "top posting"?

quote:

---

>
> I
>
> l
> i
> k
> e
>
> t
> o
>
> s
> i
> d
> e
>
> p
> o
> s
> t
> .
>
> --
> No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

quote:

---

> Off Topic discussions.

quote:

---

>Ignoramus9053, 7/1/2005, 12:49:09 PM, wrote:
>
>
>The most annoying thing on Usenet is not top or bottom posting. It is
>Off Topic discussions.

quote:

---

> HeatMan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> You've just been waiting for a chance to say that, you clever dog you.

quote:

---

>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

quote:

---

>
>All you need is one paragraph or so of quotation, then your reply. The flow of
>the conversation is maintained, reference is given and nobody has to scroll.
>What's the problem?

quote:

---

>For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
>posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
>beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.

quote:

---

>It will keep all the stuff from the
> last post, and you can follow it by just reading the next post
> replying to or related to it. It works similarly to a conversation.
> When a friend of mine and I talk in person, we don't quote everything
> the conversation started with when we reply. Why should we do any
> different on newsgroups.

quote:

---

> If you reply to the proper posting
> (sub thread or original ) the info should already have been read by
> the time you read the next entry.

quote:

---

>
> Thinking in conversation mode, not 1989 newsgroup
> ettiquette, which is how more users actually use the newsgroups
> anyway.

quote:

---

>
> I learned how to operate my newsreader a little bit at a time. So I
> have to admit, I didn,t know how manners played into how you entered
> the post early on.

quote:

---

>
> There is some good information from you on how it "should be" or used
> to be. But it is incumbent on the reader of my ppost to understand it.
> or discard it.

quote:

---

> As it stands, it is more efficient and uses less
> "bandwidth" to say what you mean, and not use an extra billionth of
> bandwidth each time you post, by quoting the same text the reader has
> already read.

quote:

---

> This is how it is for me. Hopefully all of us can make
> decisions based on our own needs, and consider how others will see it,
> and perform the tasks the way one can or will. I have no disrespect
> for Mr Henslee's desire to read things his way. However I decline to
> bend to that desire, as it is mine to decide how it fits my needs
> also.

quote:

---

> without correcting me on how they were entered. If they don' want to
> read my posts. Delete or kilfile them. Easy enough.
>
> Now, If One decides to killfile my entries, they won' be losing any
> info of the poster I replied to. Once again,..........makes good sense
> to me.

quote:

---

>
> Nuff said. ( on this subject anyway....................)

quote:

---

> Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply
>
> MUADIB®
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sste...AIN%20PAGE.html
>
> If A Quiz is Quizical,
> What is a test?
>
> The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been
> cancelled due to a conflict.

quote:

---

>I actually use a new reader program..........You can get one too.
>Free Agent is a shareware program.

quote:

---

>A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
> Just ignore them. Don't respond to them. Even better, don't waste
> time reading their comments. They aren't likely to be able to
> contribute anything worth your time.

quote:

---

>For the 90% of the users who are actually following a thread, top
>posting makes reading the thread much much easier. Those who keep
>beating the bottom posting horse are living in the past.

quote:

---

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> I prefer top posting and I will continue to top post,
> ignore the self appointed Net Cop.
>
> Cheers and have a nice Independent Day.
>
>
>
>
> <shit snip off>
>

quote:

---

> And why you described can just as easily be done with top posting.

quote:

---

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:27:09 -0500, RE: Posting Top Caesar Romano
> <SPAM@UCE.GOV> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to all who replied. I probably didn't see most of the replies,
> since I already had about 60 top posters in my kill file. However I
> knew there were probably a few more of you out there and my "Posting
> Top" post would bring you crawling out from under your rocks. It works
> like a charm every time. You top posters are such losers.
>
> BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
> losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
> highly recommend you give it a try.
>
> Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.

quote:

---

>posting objectionable. I think what really chaps my XXX is when I have to
>scroll.

quote:

---

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher <Hello@nowhere.net>
>wrote:
>========================================
>====================================
>
>Even as I bottom post THIS response I have to agree with you at least
>as far as I personally am concerned...
>
>For Me ..... it is easier to top post
>For Me .......it is a heck of a lot faster to read the "new" reply
>For Me....... it is a hell of a lot faster
>
>Bob Griffiths
>

quote:

---

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:27:09 -0500, RE: Posting Top Caesar Romano
><SPAM@UCE.GOV> wrote:
>
>
>Thanks to all who replied. I probably didn't see most of the replies,
>since I already had about 60 top posters in my kill file. However I
>knew there were probably a few more of you out there and my "Posting
>Top" post would bring you crawling out from under your rocks. It works
>like a charm every time. You top posters are such losers.
>
>BTW, this newsgroup is now very enjoyable and informative with all you
>losers identified and kill-filed. To those who haven't tried it, I
>highly recommend you give it a try.
>
>Thanks also to all the others who make this newsgroup so worthwhile.

quote:

---

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:31:10 -0500, Caesar Romano <SPAM@UCE.GOV>
> wrote:
>

quote:

---

>
>

quote:

---

> Do you really think anyone gives a flying f*&k about you and who you
> do or don't killfile?
>
>

quote:

---

> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Most top posters don't bother to trim their quotes at all. To be fair, too many
> bottom posters are guilty of the same. In your case, I don't find the top
> posting objectionable. I think what really chaps my XXX is when I have to
> scroll.
>

quote:

---

> If you don;t know why I posted this entry, please go back and read the
> prvious post I replied to by G Henslee. He makes good sense. As long
> as you agree with him.
>
> I actually use a new reader program..........You can get one too.
> Free Agent is a shareware program. It will keep all the stuff from the
> last post, and you can follow it by just reading the next post
> replying to or related to it. It works similarly to a conversation.
> When a friend of mine and I talk in person, we don't quote everything
> the conversation started with when we reply. Why should we do any
> different on newsgroups. People just throw in their two cents worth.
> It happens in every group I read. If you reply to the proper posting
> (sub thread or original ) the info should already have been read by
> the time you read the next entry. Unless you are purging your computer
> of information all the time and throwing out the baby with the
> bathwater, this should be simple enough for almost anyone.
>
> I will continue to use my newsreader the way I use it because it works
> very well, wastes less time, than having to try and read the entire
> post prior to the one I wish to read when I open a thread(or entry).
> I generally cut through all the quoted text to eliminate people being
> put off by having to sift through something they have already read
> once............ Thinking in conversation mode, not 1989 newsgroup
> ettiquette, which is how more users actually use the newsgroups
> anyway.
>
> I learned how to operate my newsreader a little bit at a time. So I
> have to admit, I didn,t know how manners played into how you entered
> the post early on. Hell, I didn't know it for two or three years
> because no one complained about how I communicated, other than how
> every word I typed used to start with an upper case letter. ( I nevr
> took typing classes in school and had no guidance in making that
> selection back then)
>
> There is some good information from you on how it "should be" or used
> to be. But it is incumbent on the reader of my ppost to understand it.
> or discard it. I make intelligent remarks, or funny ones, or
> informative entries. All of which I think are acceptable forms of
> communication. All of which can be misconstrued or understood,
> according to the level of intelligence, or lack of, of the individual
> reading them. As it stands, it is more efficient and uses less
> "bandwidth" to say what you mean, and not use an extra billionth of
> bandwidth each time you post, by quoting the same text the reader has
> already read. This is how it is for me. Hopefully all of us can make
> decisions based on our own needs, and consider how others will see it,
> and perform the tasks the way one can or will. I have no disrespect
> for Mr Henslee's desire to read things his way. However I decline to
> bend to that desire, as it is mine to decide how it fits my needs
> also. If my posts annoy anyone, I am sure they can sleep at night
> without correcting me on how they were entered. If they don' want to
> read my posts. Delete or kilfile them. Easy enough.
>
> Now, If One decides to killfile my entries, they won' be losing any
> info of the poster I replied to. Once again,..........makes good sense
> to me.
>
> Nuff said. ( on this subject anyway....................)
>
>
> Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply
>
> MUADIB®
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sste...AIN%20PAGE.html
>
> If A Quiz is Quizical,
> What is a test?
>
> The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been
> cancelled due to a conflict.

quote:

---

> I usually top post to avoid scrolling, and so my spell checker won't
> overheat on the too-common poorly written posting.

quote:

---

> I usually top post to avoid scrolling, and so my spell checker won't
> overheat on the too-common poorly written posting. I bottom posted here
> because the post flows that way.

quote:

---

> It becomes difficult to follow when a posting has both top and bottom
> posters involved.

quote:

---

> I almost never trim because I know not all postings reach every server,
> and some ISPs have lousy retention, so sometimes you see a trimmed
> response to an apparently nonexistent posting.

quote:

---

>"William Brown" <wjb31@cox.net> wrote in message
>
>
>In OE, the spell check will not do a line starting with > so the original
>post is left intact.

quote:

---

>Free Agent, and Agent, the paid version, are excellent programs, but I
>think you are mistaken in believing they retain the body of the prior
>postings.
>
>They work by downloading headers. Only if you select a header and
>download and retain the body on your pc do they retain the bodies, but
>that can start to take up a lot of your memory. If the body of the
>message has been removed from your ISPs server (and all are, sooner or
>later), you will get a message that the posting is no longer available
>if you select the header and try to download the body. If that happens,
>you should be able to find the posting using Google.

quote:

---

>
>You seem to...

quote:

---

> Only in the hope you'll kill file me.

quote:

---

> Only in the hope you'll kill file me.
>

quote:

---

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:55:42 -0400, William Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Get a clue. *ALL* posts flow that way.
>
>
>
>
> So why do you both top-post AND bottom-post? To make things difficult?
>
>
>
>
> So let's summarize: You almost never trim. You top-post. You
> bottom-post. With all this, you are concerned with making sure the thread
> is followable? What a friggin joke.
>

quote:

---

>A: Nothing really. A Newsgroup, like life itself, is full of morons.
> Just ignore them.

quote:

---

>
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:27:09 -0500, Caesar Romano
> <Caesar@SPAMBLOCKhiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>

quote:

---

> Good advice. *PLONK*
>
>

quote:

---

>
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 09:52:38 -0400, Bob G.
> <rg327_remove_@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>

[vbcol=seagreen]
> When the net-Nazi's come out demanding everyone bottom post I
> sometimes throw my 0.02 in to support top posting. But the real truth
> of the matter is that sometimes top posting is fine and other times
> the reply is complicated to the point where you have to intersperse
> your new material with the old material, and for some short messages
> it's just as easy to bottom post. There really isn't any one single
> way that works best BUT in the absence of the trimming that was
> SUPPOSED to accompany bottom posting, most messages are better replied
> to with top posting if for no other reason then to minimize the page
> down, page down, page down that long bottom posted threads result in .
>

quote:

---

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:45:13 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mortschnerd@carolina.rr.com.remove> wrote:
>

quote:

---

>
>

quote:

---

> And why you described can just as easily be done with top posting.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:46:25 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mortschnerd@carolina.rr.com.remove> wrote:

quote:

---

>
>
>

quote:

---

> Same here. And since almost no one trims, it means when people bottom
> post you have to scroll/page down often many times, just to read their
> three new lines of text. If they did the same non-trimming but top
> posted it would save everyone tons of time and effort. I think in the
> long run the net-Nazi's who beat the drums for bottom posting will be
> a smaller and smaller minority because top posting just makes more
> sense in this virtual "print" environment.
>

quote:

---

>
>
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:49:09 GMT, Ignoramus9053
> <ignoramus9053@NOSPAM.9053.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>

quote:

---

> Don't look now but this is a COMPUTER/VIRTUAL medium, not the printed
> page. When dealing with additions to printed material AND when
> dealing with 300 baud modems and only text based display the notion
> that additions should go at the bottom makes some sense. It no longer
> makes sense. People using COMPUTERS to read these messages can most
> easily read the messages if they are top posted when they are these
> kinds of ping-pong communications.

quote:

---

> Are you OK? Me thinks not, so I fixed it for you. You get a double
> *PLONK*PLONK*
>
> Buh bye.
>

quote:

---

> "G Henslee" <ghen@cableone.net> wrote in message

quote:

---

>
>
>

quote:

---

> Plonking may be for the spineless, but aggravating you is a lot of
>fun...
>
>

quote:

---

> HeatMan wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You give yourself undue credit. I'm not in the least bit aggravated.
> <yawn> Try again bozo.

quote:

---

>
> "G Henslee" <ghen@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:3j0dveFnrb9dU1@individual.net...
>
>
>
>

quote:

---

> Yeah?
>
> How come you feel the need to change every post?
>

quote:

---

> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>
> Most top posters don't bother to trim their quotes at all. To be fair, too many
> bottom posters are guilty of the same. In your case, I don't find the top
> posting objectionable. I think what really chaps my XXX is when I have to
> scroll.
>