OT--Taking on city hall

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:12:57 +1100, with neither quill nor qualm, Bill Lee quickly quoth:

That's a bad habit to get into, Bill. I hate top-posting wherever and whenever. People who do it are almost always just too lazy to snip, and when people don't have enough compassion for the reader of their message, the reader shouldn't have enough compassion to spend the extra time to figure out what the top-poster meant to impart. (You agreed with me later in your post, which I snipped.)

Inline = interstitial. It's the only logical method for multiple statements of reply.

No, I'm using a purchased copy of Fortè Agent. OE is used only for email.

Well stated, Bill.

Bill,

Thank you for your lengthy reply outlining why you are convinced your view is the right one. I'm sure you may consider why others of equal rank to you are convinced that top posting is better. Your arguments are not convincing.

I'll quote your latest epistle and insert my thoughts where appropriate.

(according to Bill and Larry)

(I don't share your certainty that your way is more efficient, given the evolution that has happened in usenet habits recently)

(There are times when the posted rules no longer apply. You're trying to enforce an old rule that has outlived its' time. Your example is like insisting driving driving on the right side is always the correct way since there are places, even here in the USA where it is the wrong side.)

( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you imagine have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote? Of those, what percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have been arrested for violating it?)

(Yes, I and I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the top.)

(Yes, I spend a lot of time on the internet. On usenet I read only those threads that interest me so I have time to spend on the mail lists and large bulletin boards that I moderate. That's why I object to wasting time scrolling to find what someone has to say when it could be politely added to the top.)

(certainly not! That's when I scroll, to go deep enough to find context if I don't remember it from the post being replied to.)

(I'm using IE, so mine works the same way. On this point we agree. That's why I think top posting is better than bottom posting.)

(I'm saying it is irresponsible to expect every reader to scroll through EVERY post all the way to the bottom to find new content.)

(WOW! Now you've found something we can celebrate! I feel strongly that the quality of a poster's care used in preparing a post reflects how much consideration should be given their effort. Poorly written posts deserve the trash can. The authors often deserve plonking.)

(I'm pleased we have this common ground to agree on. I tend to be a little grumpy when a post of mine is dismissed by some ruffian who is barely literate issues a proclamation that I'm wrong without even an attempt to understand what I've written. On rare occasion I'll reply in kind. I do put effort into my writing. I was past 60 when I began to type and it is still an effort. I don't have any advanced "education", but I began learning and thinking 71 years ago. However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank on usenet as just another guy.)

Larry,

Just in case it's escaped your attention, we're equal in that respect too!

George Willer

It ..... It ..... It ..... sob ..... snork ..... wheeze ......... blow ........ sniffle .......

It's just not FAIR. That everyone doesn't do everything just right.

boohoo .......... sob ............. snerk ...... OMIGAWD!

Steve

OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How does that make your post make more sense?

Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion.

Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Was it Yogi or Lasorda that said, "You can see a lot by observing."

Steve

Ok, it's obvious we are NOT going to get along. I suggest we split into two groups

1. rec.crafts.metalwork> >

and

1. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals.

Whattaya think?

I think your goals don't include writing in such a way that others can easily follow, or follow-up, to your posts.

So who the f*ck cares? I didn't realize YOUR life was so lame that you would even bother to count my posts, or make note of how I posted...

Beat ya to it asshole... P L O N K !!!!!

I don't have any advanced "education", but I began

Looks like I'm in very good company.

Harold

Harold,

If we were closer I'm sure we could become very good friends!

George Willer

Absolutely! When I first found out about Usenet... I watched & read for a long time before I made my first post; and during that time I picked out what I liked and didn't like about what the others were posting. Honestly, I thought bottom-posters were retards. I top-post all the time... and only here amongst the "net-nannies" has it ever been mentioned. I think probably 90% of the snowmobile newsgroup posts are top-posted... and everybody seems happy over there! LOL On the other hand, I'm anxiously waiting for the day that I have nothing better to worry about than how someone else composes their usenet posts. Hahaha! David

You missed the third group. Those with over a room temperature IQ that can keep up with whatever is going on, top or bottom posted.

Just a thought, and you asked for it.

Steve

I'm sure I'd welcome the opportunity. Like you, I have no formal education, but I feel I am a worthy individual that has extensive life experiences that are of interest to others, and am able to convey, in some meaningful way, bits of information that are of benefit to those that have an interest in hearing what I have to say. Like you, I started learning when I was born. Man, 66 years ago. Where does time go?

Did I mention I'm very opinionated?

Harold

Come on over to fuknYonkers. I'll share my 0.205 acre w/ you. We can jointly terrorize the neighborhood.

This is Usenet! Nobody has more rights than anyone else[1], and I would suggest to you that there is no such thing as a 'rank' on Usenet. Reputation and perception are what counts on Usenet, both good and bad.

George - you seem to have just agreed with me by you inserting your comments into a quoted article: an inline quoted posting. Was this a mistake?

Well, it's actually Bill, Larry, RFC1855, and the general netiquette of Usenet. You saying that it is 'Bill and Larry' appears to be an attempt to paint us as the odd people out in desiring this trimming - it is not. There is even a Wikipedia article on top posting [2][4].

I'm wondering what this evolution that you mention might be. Is it: a) The Endless September[1]? b) The destruction of so many newsgroups by spammers and spamming? c) The advent of sporge? d) The advent of cancel wars? e) the move to web blogs and forums for many users, and the general demise of moderated groups?

So why doesn't RFC1855 still apply? What parts are outmoded and why? Why has it not been declared obsolescent and a replacement RFC issued like so many other RFCs have? If the answer is that "I like top posting" then is this a sufficient reason to ignore these 'rules'? Is it OK for others who may disagree with other elements of Netiquette to also ignore these rules too?

Could you give me a few examples where it's OK to drive on the left side of a two-way public road in the USA? What are the normal consequences of not doing so on a highway? In fact I deliberately did not choose the 'driving on the wrong side of the road' example since the consequences of driving like this are drastic and abrupt, unlike Usenet, where you will not die, become injured, or lose money because you choose not to follow RFC1855.

What percentage of posters know all the local, county, state and federal laws they have to abide by? Is this ever treated as an excuse in law? Considering that RFC1855 "Netiquette" is recommended for all people who post articles, it's not quite a set of 'arcane' rules, is it. Did you know that Comcast and Earthlink, some of the largest ISP's in the USA mentions abiding by Netiquette and give examples in their FAQs for Internet usage.

I have no idea, just as you have no idea of how many people agree with all the laws you are subject to where you live. At the moment, no one I know has been arrested for ignoring RFC1855. Some people have lost posting privileges on certain servers for having done so - so its a minor form of Usenet death.

Just because they don't know any better does not make it right (IMHO). Didn't your parents ever say to you, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?"

Just like there are others who prefer to see For Sale advertisements in newsgroups whose charter specifically bans them - you may not agree with it but it may be better to abide by the conventions. Without people abiding by RFC1855, we may as well just have one massive newsgroup called usenet, where everyone posts anything they like - where there are absolutely no rules what you should post or not post. I don't think you believe that there should be no rules, I think you disagree with a subset of the ones generally recommended.

Which indicates you are very focussed in which threads you read and pay close attention to the evolving threads that have come from a root thread. I tend to read about 30 newsgroups and scan hundreds of articles.

I put it to you that there are significant differences between email, web forums and Usenet. The way that messages propagate and the way they are put to the reader are different. On email, I favour top posting with appropriate trimming. On web forums with threading, I favour unquoted replies. On web forums without threading, I favour selected quotes with replies. On Usenet, it should be inline posting with trimmed and paraphrased quotes. Sometimes these general rules have to be broken, but they remain useful defaults to me.

Presumably, as bulletin board moderator, there is a Netiquette associated with people posting to your bulletin boards (are these bulletin boards, or are they web forums?) If the a sizable minority decided that parts of your Netiquette rules were invalid (because "times have changed"), then would this be acceptable? Let us say that they have now decided that swearing in their messages was now OK - what would you do and what should you do? What would you do if you had no power to stop them swearing?

Are you saying that you should fully quote the article you are responding to after your reply? One of the other issues I have with this is the extra bandwidth this takes up[4]. Not everyone who is going to read your postings is going to have fast broadband access, or even access to a fast usenet server. You might be OK, but it's not you you that you need to keep in mind as the target audience - it's everyone out there reading usenet.

I think we can both agree that bottom posting with full quoting is the worst way of posting to Usenet. This means top posting *is* better, but my contention is that inline posting is better still.

I not I'm making that argument. If you have that impression that I am, then I have not done an adequate job in my postings to tell you what I do want. Quoting an article you are responding to does not require the inclusion of all its text - the less quoted the better, as long as it provides context. A single quoted line is often adequate.

"On the Internet, no one can tell if you're a dog." - well up to the point that an entity's behaviour set is limited to that of a dog. More like, "If it walks like a duck and quack's like a duck..." [What I'm saying is that I agree with you here]

71 years is an advanced education in itself. As long as you've been building on that knowledge and experience in those then it is of far greater value to me and others than someone who went from high school to PhD to get the pieces of paper without life experience and then think they know it all because of those pieces of paper. As stupid as believing that film stars' opinions on anything other than acting are automatically more valuable than yours or mine.

I believe reputation is what ranks us on Usenet. I would hate to be categorised as equal with some of the people I see 'contributing' to various Usenet newsgroups.

I see posting on Usenet as not what is better for me, but what is likely to be reasonable to the most number of readers out there that I want to influence. As such I abide by Netiquette rules that may be detrimental to my own interests but are good for the community. Bill Lee

Notes: [1] Well actually Usenet server administrators and ISPs have more rights that you and I since they can prevent posting or propagation of articles to or through their systems. [2] [3] [4] Yes, I did read the line in that article: "Those who prefer inline replies, on the other hand, are occasionally vocal and "evangelizing" on the subject, which others can find annoying at times." mea culpa

"Bill Lee"

Snip

No, it isn't a mistake. It's a reasonable way to post on some occasions... rather than blindly bottom posting as many do. It is especially useful when used in a topic in which there are many thoughts to express.

Larry is no longer here.

I referred to you two as examples of some who imagine themselves playing the role of net cop.

It's none of the above. It's the fact that so many bottom post one liners to long posts as to make following an otherwise interesting thread tedious. I'm sorry I haven't been able to express myself in a manner you can understand.

Snip

It's becoming tiresome answering your questions that bring up what I never said.

I never said "public road" nor "highway". An example of where the drive on the right rule does not apply is in most any quarry. The reason is that the ramps for climbing up are usually clockwise. The climbing vehicle is on the side that allows backing into a wall to stop in the event of a problem, rather than over an unprotected edge. The decending vehicle is under no such danger and therefore drives on the left. The drive on the left applies to all vehicles anywhere in the quarry. I have no idea why the ramps are so constructed. Maybe you can do a search to turn up some arcane rule to clear it up.

Yes, it certainly is. That is, here in the real world.

snip

Top posting cannot be compared to "jumping off a cliff", since there are benefits to top posting.

As a moderator I regularly delete posts that violate posted rules. Why do you imagine otherwise?

It's no mystery to me why you have trouble keeping posts in context. Would you like some sound advice?

Bill... you're grasping! Certainly you can figure out that I would ban such posters, just as I would ban those who bottom post one liners to lengthy quotes, if it were an option.

No

Did I ever tell you I'm on a VERY slow dial up connection? I pray every day that my phone company will move up to the 21st century. You assume WAY too much... it's getting in the way of your understanding.

Now you're starting to get it!

Why don't people write as you wish? Why is it fashionable to bash top posters? Why don't pigs whistle?

You're responding to me! Do you mean me?

snip

We are in agreement on the goal, but are very much in disagreement on what can be done that is best for most readers. I've recently learned what a friend the "blocked senders" list can be.

George Willer

Down deep..they are really good people.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

Down deep, Im sure she would be very nice.

Biodegradable too.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner