ready made shop

Depends on if your goal is to presume to be the last word on a topic, or to participate in a discussion.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:55:19 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, RoyJ quickly quoth:

(see sig)

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:06:39 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes quickly quoth:

Given his penchant for useless replies, as seen today, I simply added him to my filter list. No more of his crap for me.

-- Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit. --e e cummings

Wes -

Grow up. Give it a break. Top posting was mandatory before you came. It started when news groups were dial in and every byte downloaded was charged. Yea that was the early days of internet.

Bottom lurkers like you are on the 4th or 5th page of posts and often never get read. Not enough snipping to clean out redundant junk. These are replies not every post is the war and peace of a subject.

Martin

Mart> RoyJ wrote:

Sounds like some users can't see threading or indentions. And their sig has to be copied from their "novalidaddress" person to this by hand. Usenet is capitalized.

The last time I read a book it was top down. Not bottom up like Asian text. Bottom stuff is history. Top stuff is the new stuff. Look at the ground.

Martin Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.

Larry Jaques wrote:

Rats - just sold my Teletype with a nice punch and dup capability.

Mart> steamer wrote:

Been trying to get my email to pound the quoted text down to about 5 or 6 point size, and leave the new stuff at regular size. ISTR that one of my old email prog's did that by default... Not working at it too hard though.

THAT, at least, did not leave me having to scroll to the bottom of pages of untrimmed repetitious drivel that no-one that was following the conversation needed in order to figure out what was going on. Especially when I had written a good portion of the aforementioned drivel! :-) I don't actually feel the need to reread the ENTIRE exchange, each time I move to a new post.

A discussion is a discussion. It never ended for me when someone either did not quote, or top posted. In either case, I have yet to see much use in quoting several hundred lines, only to add the obligatory "Me Too!" to the bottom. Not worth the time to scroll down for that.

For the most part, it would do better to be sending howling emails off to Microsoft, and comlain to them that it's unfair that their market dominating email software trains people to do it wrong by default.

Mostly, though, it seems too little a thing to get in a twist about, given some of the heinous(at least by comparison) things that are done here by some posters. most of whom, are, no doubt, long time residents of the average guys filter log.

Whatever ya feel the need for, though. Block out all the guys that piss you off, and eventually you end up talking to yourself.

Keep a sense of humor. Have a safe New Year!

Cheers Trevor Jones

personally, I consider top posting a favor to the reader - you can see the newest information first and not read through the history unless you want to - if you feel it necessary to dismiss all those who elect this method of communication, by all means, be my guest - it is your loss, not ours

Part of the point of bottom posting is deleting the unnecessary stuff in the thread. When you top post, you don't notice you're wasting bandwidth by including 10k of messages to add your one liner.

David

Cite, please? Because, I was there, and this claim of "mandatory" strikes of both "wrong", and "unworkable".

Yet, here's a perfect example. You snipped _nothing_ of Wes's post. You answered some of his points in some order but if I now want to follow up to any of your answers, I can't do it with the context of his message, just with your un-referenceable top-posted response.

Wouldn't it be easier to have:

clarification

further comments on second topic

...and so on?

Tell me, how does it help me or anyone else, when the first thing we have to do to see who the heck you're answering and what they said, is to scroll down, read, and then scroll back up to read what you said?

Seriously. How do you see that as an improvement in effective communication?

Then why the hell are you top posting?

Mark Rand RTFM

That however only works for those using an html or rich text (or similar) sort of format. I prefer plain old text. jk

That may have been what my old email was doing with it.

In any case, it sure made it a lot easier to pick out the quoted text from the new.

Cheers Trevor Jones

The British ISP people were (Government owned) were charging by the number of bytes transfered. This is like some web site supporters say you can have so many hits then it costs and so many meg upload (pages read) a day before costs kick in. - that was PacBell - now ATT - but was a few years ago. Back in 1999. My web site is still sitting there - they moved off to different servers and forgot to kill my old one. I don't live in PacBell area any more...

The issue was they would download and see the response and then stop the transfer. Life is much easier for us with DSL or cable or Sat speeds - this was in 12, and 2400 baud modems for the Brits.

We were asked and then it was pressed over and over to do it that way. Tools are that way - have to program one way or another.

If someone can't tell who sent what - with the threading or indentions - I think they are not looking.

Martin

Mart> >> Wes -

Simply this:

When reading a post of 10,000 line 40 person humph does one want to read or page and page down looking for what was the next thing said ? The previous message had that - but I don't want to read 10,000 lines of history when I needed to see what was next said.

That is why I am posting in Heaven mode not hell mode.

Mart> >

I wasn't disputing the per-byte charge, but the 'mandatory top-posting' claim. Which you made here:

Would you care to address:

Or did you just want to answer questions not asked and avoid those which were?

(Me: thinks, I wonder who the f*ck he's talking to this time. Oh well, I can either not know, or scroll all the way down to see, and scroll all the way back up to answer his mis-placed response. Hangon, this may take some time.)

Oh, it's Mark Rand, asking why he's top-posting. And Martin, completely missing the point.

You're arguing against non-snipping, not against posting with context in the order that conversations take place in.

You seem to have misspelled "clueless".

Since you break every message that you reply to and have steadfastly refused to comply with the norms for this and other groups:-

Regards Mark Rand RTFM