Adiabatics

Neither am I so what is your point ? or do you run around in mommies formalware and are now trying to come out about it ?

I really do not think this is the place for that man.

Chris Taylor

Negative. it is top posting. I will ONCE AGAIN prove it. YOUR post Mr Kaplow is FIRST at 12/23/2003 1505

MY POST will be 12/23/2003 ~1800

so CLEARLY in english american browser YOUR post will be ABOVE MY POST.

YOUR post contains YOUR content MINE contains MY content. together they make a message.

YOURS on top MINE on bottom. TOP to BOTTOM just like it should be.

See.

NOW if I "bottom" posted it would NOT be TOP to BOTTOM.

it would be TOP to >TOP to Bottom. because you would have to go through my

but since I post the proper way IE like we have spoken and written for hundreds of years a person reading this thread will first read your post. and then read my reply. plain and simple.

WHY is your brain unable to wrap itself around this EXTREMELY simple concept.

Chris Taylor

because the "question" is already where it is supposed to be. at the top of the list above my message.

Chris Taylor

It looks like what Chris is calling "top posting" is actually not quoting for context at all, but assuming that the reader is directly viewing the prior message.

Depending on what software the reader is using, this may be a bad assumption.

-dw

Chris is assuming I think that the reader just read the message before it and clicked the next button to read the reply.

Right - but "the message before it" may not be the same one he's seeing. (For example, I generally have the display sorted by date rather than by thread linkage...)

-dave w

Wanna bet

You have posts and threads.

threads are supposed to be top to bottom. that is the normal way of writing in this nation to the best of my knowledge.

if you are telling your browser to sort otherwise alas that is your problem since that is not the norm in this country.

People keep "intentionally" I believe mis stating Posts as threads and applying rules thusly.

in fact from a purely technical point of view it is NOT needed to include ANY of the previous post. it is right their for you to read.

but setting your browser to hide read message and or server issues (out of order posts because some have not cleared your server yet) mean that is is "courteous" of the poster to include a "foot note" to allow you to get an idea of what is going on if for some strange reason you got out of the loop somewhere.

also please do not assume. I AM NOT calling the way I post top posting. I call it Question and then answer. the previous poster "called this" top posting so I continued that nomenclature.

Bottom posting is also a misnomer. it should be called "double posting"

it is not POSSIBLE for the POSTER to bottom or top post. whether message appear on the top or the bottom of each other is determined ONLY by the READER's browser. THEIR settings determine the chronological order of posts.

the only way you could have "jeapordy" style posting is if the READER tells is his browser to sort message chronologically in ascending order instead of the normal english style of descending order.

Chris Taylor

If you are reading messages out of order sorry man but that is YOUR problem

100%

that is like jumping into a book in the middle and getting pissed off at the author for not have a synopsis of the entire previous part that you skipped on whatever page you started.

Chris Taylor

So your telling me you are not viewing the threads in thread locked format. what kind of crappy browser are you using ?

either way the browser HAS to sort the message some way so OLDER message will ALWAYS be higher in the list than newer message.

this tells me you are stretching for an answer that you do not have.

99.9999999% of usenet will view usenet forums in descending chronological thread locked formatting.

This is DEFAULT on every one of the dozens and dozens of news readers I have played with.

IF YOU have your messages listed in ANY format besides top to bottom then it is YOU who are viewing newsgroups OUTSIDE the standards of our language. not me.

Chris Taylor

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

Once again, it seems like it's the rest of the world against Chris:

-------------------- "Top-posting is akin to walking down any High Street on Saturday wearing wellingtons and a bright pink tutu with 'I Know Little and Care Less' tattooed on your forehead and a sign saying 'Kick Me' taped to your back."

- Sarah [swroot], Re: Blue Mountain Coffee, 30-01-2001 04:53:11 PST, uk.food+drink.misc (newsgroup)

-------------------- From "How not to look like an idiot:

Why should I not put my reply where I want to?

Because it makes the message harder to read.

Also, it depends if you want to be taken seriously or not. if you want the people who will be able to help you to actually do that, adhering to conventions is a good idea.

Usenet posts (and emails) should flow like a conversation - listen, then reply.

Or, if you want to get really pedantic about it:

Excepted from rfc1855

- if you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. this will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. since netnews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. giving context helps everyone. but do not include the entire original!

But quoting at the top of the message is quicker - that way you don't have to scroll down to find an answer - it makes much more sense!

Quicker for who ? with upside down quoters, you have to scroll down to find the context, then scroll back up to read the actual new text. with normal people's messages, it's all inline. much easier to read.

In fact, I had to go to the bottom of your post before I knew what the context of this post was. then I had to return to the top to read what you had written about it.

Reading this thread is like homework or an SAT test or something :)

Bottom Posting:

Q: Why is bottom posting such a bad thing? A: >Why is bottom posting such a bad thing? Beacause it messes up the normal flow of conversation that has been used for hundreds of years.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? A: >What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Bottom Posting.

Now how would this conversation above look if done by a TOP poster as you call it.

Top Posting:

Q: Why is bottom posting such a bad thing? A: Beacause it messes up the normal flow of conversation that has been used for hundreds of years.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? A: Bottom Posting.

Wow thats interesting. it looks like a NORMAL conversation.

Chris Taylor

top posting: I think the news group gives a rats prize at this point.....

Joel. phx

Point!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Yes, that's how it should be. That's called bottom posting because your post is at the BOTTOM of my post. But that's not how you post. Right here I'm replying to your post that appears BEFORE my post in THIS message. See, the words above and below this paragraph are YOURS!

And these lines are from my original post which you responded to. Your response appears BEFORE the text you are responding to, thus you are fuilty of top posting and subject to the disciplinary action of Emily PostNews.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Do things look different on your screen than mine? What I see here is your message at the top, with the question below. Are you seeing something else?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Since usenet is a random unconnected stream of semi-intelligence, thats a real bad idea. It's rare that in reading a message it replies to the message that was read immediately before it. Unless only 2 people are posting to a thread, and they wait longer than propigation delays, it's unlikely. In a thread like this it's almost guaranteed to not happen. The last message I saw before Chris's post about what he incorrectly thinks is top posting was a message from Alan, not from Chris or from me. My newsreader follows threads, in the order they showed up on my newsserver.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Thank you Chris, you've confirmed that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please follow the hasbro link I posted earlier...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

That's what my browser does. But due to multiple time zones around the world, the time stamps are based on the order the messages show up on my server. Even ignoring the time zone issues, let's assume the following:

6:00 Bob posts a message in this thread "Adaibatics" 7:00 Alan posts a response to something else with the same subject 8:00 Dave responds to Alan 9:00 Chris responds to Bob

Then at noon I read RMR, and I will see the 4 messages In the order listed above. Chris's response will show up on my screen after Dave's message, and I don't have a clue what the #@%! Chris is talking about unless I stop, scroll down to see what he's replying to, then go back up and re-read what he wrote.

Even then it probably won't make sense :-)

If you think every one reads everything in the order you read it, and the internet revolves around Chris, well... Then why even bother to repost the text you're responding to BELOW your message. It just doesn't make sense.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!