Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
Definitions:
Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
placed below the original text.
We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by
people who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net
etiquette'. The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.
In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant
parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply
directly beneath the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more
about writing new posts. Check out this site: http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
top-posting.
1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following
URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated but
still has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this site:
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!
2. We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders like
Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is the
Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious
bugs. Let us quote someone we know:
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to
implement to put a signature at the end of the post instead of putting
it directly above the post you are replying to and can not change the
position. Forte Agent has as a feature that reply to a post it will
remove the signature (recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space) and
everything below it, so it will remove a part of the original message.
This is good Usenet practice so Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on
the other hand is faulty, check this bugreport regarding the Usenet
signature delimiter.
If you want to try Agent, you can get it here.
3. Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message
is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read
from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this
convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the
question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance
increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the
message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread
was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will
be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about,
due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.
4. To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new
text, it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and
optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
regard to one's reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts,
because most top-posters leave the original message intact. All these
long posts not only clutter up discussions, but they also clutter up the
server space.
5. Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the
relevant parts: it not possible to answer within the original message.
Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder.
6. Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping.
This can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start,
and using only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do it
manually, and that can be tiresome.
7. A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll
to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always
have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll
back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have
to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a
counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the
previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than
scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is
inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be
simply unavailable.
8. Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in
their charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch
newsgroups, you will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you
fail to follow Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according to
the quoting guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the
guidelines, if one does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one just
subscribed to.
We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for
top-posting. The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people
spend on making posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post,
that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no
irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the
majority of the group will adhere to this convention, the group will be
nicer, tidier and easier to read.
As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means
that the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely
removed. It makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom
one is replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong
settings of news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to
start with clean replies.
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0A8FE8.21131304042009@news.individual.net...
> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
Cause girlie men secretly want to be on the bottom, real men want to be on
top...
"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> amazed us all with the
following in news:9fidnTVJufNhkEXUnZ2dnUVZ_j6WnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-0A8FE8.21131304042009@news.individual.net...
>> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>
>
> Cause girlie men secretly want to be on the bottom, real men want to
> be on top...
>
>
>
In article <9fidnTVJufNhkEXUnZ2dnUVZ_j6WnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote:
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-0A8FE8.21131304042009@news.individual.net...
> > Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>
>
> Cause girlie men secretly want to be on the bottom, real men want to be on
> top...
i've heard a number of guys who are virgins say that.
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlockâ‰*.cray.com>
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>
> Definitions:
> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
> placed below the original text.
It's all Micro$oft's fault because their lousy Windoze Email/News client
always puts the cursor at the *TOP* of the reply text instead of the
*BOTTOM* were it should be, so the Windroids (who aren't the sharpest
tools in the box) are too lazy or stupid to move the cursor below the text.
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0A8FE8.21131304042009@news.individual.net...
> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>
> Definitions:
> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
> placed below the original text.
>
> We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by
> people who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net
> etiquette'. The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.
> In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant
> parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply
> directly beneath the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more
> about writing new posts. Check out this site:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
>
> Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
> top-posting.
>
> 1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following
> URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated but
> still has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this site:
>
> 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!
>
> 2. We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders like
> Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is the
> Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious
> bugs. Let us quote someone we know:
>
> "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
> probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
>
> We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to
> implement to put a signature at the end of the post instead of putting
> it directly above the post you are replying to and can not change the
> position. Forte Agent has as a feature that reply to a post it will
> remove the signature (recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space) and
> everything below it, so it will remove a part of the original message.
> This is good Usenet practice so Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on
> the other hand is faulty, check this bugreport regarding the Usenet
> signature delimiter.
>
> If you want to try Agent, you can get it here.
>
> 3. Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
> conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
> said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message
> is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read
> from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this
> convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the
> question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance
> increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the
> message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread
> was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will
> be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about,
> due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.
>
> 4. To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new
> text, it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and
> optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
> regard to one's reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts,
> because most top-posters leave the original message intact. All these
> long posts not only clutter up discussions, but they also clutter up the
> server space.
>
> 5. Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the
> relevant parts: it not possible to answer within the original message.
> Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder.
>
> 6. Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping.
> This can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start,
> and using only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do it
> manually, and that can be tiresome.
>
> 7. A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll
> to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always
> have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll
> back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have
> to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a
> counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the
> previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than
> scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is
> inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be
> simply unavailable.
>
> 8. Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in
> their charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch
> newsgroups, you will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you
> fail to follow Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according to
> the quoting guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the
> guidelines, if one does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one just
> subscribed to.
>
> We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for
> top-posting. The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people
> spend on making posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post,
> that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no
> irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the
> majority of the group will adhere to this convention, the group will be
> nicer, tidier and easier to read.
>
> As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means
> that the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely
> removed. It makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom
> one is replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong
> settings of news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to
> start with clean replies.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> --
> "You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
> of the fetus view the woman as a container."
> ==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
>
"jon.in.durham" <jon@no.email.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gr9s05$s0a$1@news.motzarella.org...
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>>
>> Definitions:
>> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
>> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
>> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
>> placed below the original text.
>
> It's all Micro$oft's fault because their lousy Windoze Email/News client
> always puts the cursor at the *TOP* of the reply text instead of the
> *BOTTOM* were it should be, so the Windroids (who aren't the sharpest
> tools in the box) are too lazy or stupid to move the cursor below the
> text.
>
> Micro$oft are part of the axis of evil
Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "jon.in.durham" <jon@no.email.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gr9s05$s0a$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>>> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>>>
>>> Definitions:
>>> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
>>> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
>>> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
>>> placed below the original text.
>>
>> It's all Micro$oft's fault because their lousy Windoze Email/News
>> client always puts the cursor at the *TOP* of the reply text instead
>> of the *BOTTOM* were it should be, so the Windroids (who aren't the
>> sharpest tools in the box) are too lazy or stupid to move the cursor
>> below the text.
>>
>> Micro$oft are part of the axis of evil
>
>
> RTFM
Try the "Thunderbird" mail client. It does news too. It works pretty
well and you're not supporting the "axis of evil"!
> It's all Micro$oft's fault because their lousy Windoze Email/News client
> always puts the cursor at the *TOP* of the reply text instead of the
> *BOTTOM* were it should be
FALSE.
Set set the damn thing the way you want it! (as below link)
I think my trouble is I don't "do well" being told by some ******* that
thinks he's bigger or better or has a larger penis than I do, what I
MUST do. I rebel against petty, and this IS petty, little "controls"
someone who thinks he is "over" me tries to impose. I'm not alone.
Just look at them protesting in the streets, and it's growing larger.
Religion is a good example of some ancient hierarchy of oligarchs trying
to impose their stupid ideas on humanity as a whole. It took me years
to shake a lifetime of religious indoctrination that started at birth,
the guilt and fear nonsense propaganda used is just terrorism, a total
fabricated lie to keep these clerics in "power".
Actually top posting makes a lot of sense, especially when the replies
include the full text of some lengthy prose. Like a good news article
in a newspaper, the meat of the article is in the first paragraph and
you get to see the reply to the post immediately, without all the
scrolling and scrolling down to his answer:
"That's just not right."
Which, had it been at the TOP of the post would have saved you 95% of
the traveling time, had it been where it belonged....right at the top,
under the headline.
Just because "we've always done it that way", doesn't mean it makes any
sense, or is logical, at all. If noone ever bucks the establishment,
we'd still be burning imaginary witches at the stake to satisfy the
offended priests....and they'd still rein in the totalitarian state like
the Taliban, murderist *******s one and all.
With the original text on the bottom, it becomes a footnote to your
reply, a complimentary reference to be read only if you need to refer to
the original text to associate what this guy says in relation to what
he's replying to. Who needs to be presented with the old post BEFORE he
gets to read the reply....holding you up and wearing out your arrow keys
or mouse wheel? It's just stupid...sort of like religion.
Sometimes a little anarchy corrects stupid mistakes.
> 1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following
> URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated
but
> still has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this
site:
>
>
In reference to my previous post about how much more logical top posting
is, this reply is a great example to prove my point. I got to read
Frankster's two word reply to James' eloquent hypothesis, instantly. I
didn't need to re-read James' prose as I knew, or thought I knew, what
it was all about, already. In 3 seconds, I got to read this reply then
move on to the next....without scrolling an inch!
If I had missed some point in James' prose Frankster was replying to, I
could have THEN scrolled down into James' long text, presented to me
with Frankster's complimentary repost, to look for the link I missed or
the idea I might need to research further if Frankster had expressed a
different view than my own thoughts.
Top posting, as this example clearly shows, is MUCH more LOGICAL! Top
posting OVER THE HEADERS, allows the headers to divide the reference
text from Frankster's reply and James' reply, if applicable. One
shouldn't top post between the poster's header and his text. That's
confusing.
> It's not.
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-0A8FE8.21131304042009@news.individual.net...
>> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>>
>> Definitions:
>> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
>> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
>> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
>> placed below the original text.
>>
>> We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by
>> people who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net
>> etiquette'. The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.
>> In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-
relevant
>> parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply
>> directly beneath the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more
>> about writing new posts. Check out this site:
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
>>
>> Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
>> top-posting.
>>
>> 1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following
>> URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated
but
>> still has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this
site:
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> 2. We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders
like
>> Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is
the
>> Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious
>> bugs. Let us quote someone we know:
>>
>> "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
>> probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan
Plugge
>>
>> We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to
>> implement to put a signature at the end of the post instead of
putting
>> it directly above the post you are replying to and can not change the
>> position. Forte Agent has as a feature that reply to a post it will
>> remove the signature (recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space)
and
>> everything below it, so it will remove a part of the original
message.
>> This is good Usenet practice so Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express
on
>> the other hand is faulty, check this bugreport regarding the Usenet
>> signature delimiter.
>>
>> If you want to try Agent, you can get it here.
>>
>> 3. Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
>> conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
>> said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original
message
>> is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally
read
>> from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this
>> convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read
the
>> question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance
>> increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the
>> message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the
thread
>> was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it
will
>> be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all
about,
>> due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.
>>
>> 4. To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new
>> text, it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and
>> optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
>> regard to one's reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts,
>> because most top-posters leave the original message intact. All these
>> long posts not only clutter up discussions, but they also clutter up
the
>> server space.
>>
>> 5. Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the
>> relevant parts: it not possible to answer within the original
message.
>> Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder.
>>
>> 6. Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping.
>> This can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start,
>> and using only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do
it
>> manually, and that can be tiresome.
>>
>> 7. A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to
scroll
>> to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always
>> have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to
scroll
>> back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you
have
>> to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a
>> counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the
>> previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than
>> scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is
>> inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be
>> simply unavailable.
>>
>> 8. Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in
>> their charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch
>> newsgroups, you will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if
you
>> fail to follow Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according to
>> the quoting guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the
>> guidelines, if one does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one
just
>> subscribed to.
>>
>> We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for
>> top-posting. The most top-posts originate from the minimal work
people
>> spend on making posts. We think that one should be proud of one's
post,
>> that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no
>> irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the
>> majority of the group will adhere to this convention, the group will
be
>> nicer, tidier and easier to read.
>>
>> As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means
>> that the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely
>> removed. It makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and
whom
>> one is replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong
>> settings of news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to
>> start with clean replies.
>>
>> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>>
>> --
>> "You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
>> of the fetus view the woman as a container."
>> ==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
>>
>
>
Larry wrote on [Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:49:43 +0000]:
> In reference to my previous post about how much more logical top posting
> is, this reply is a great example to prove my point. I got to read
> Frankster's two word reply to James' eloquent hypothesis, instantly. I
> didn't need to re-read James' prose as I knew, or thought I knew, what
> it was all about, already. In 3 seconds, I got to read this reply then
> move on to the next....without scrolling an inch!
Top posters don't know how to post correctly, at all.
To respond to a post you need to TRIM the post and reply to it in line,
so it's very easy to follow.
In article <slrngti5bo.cll.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Larry wrote on [Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:49:43 +0000]:
> > In reference to my previous post about how much more logical top posting
> > is, this reply is a great example to prove my point. I got to read
> > Frankster's two word reply to James' eloquent hypothesis, instantly. I
> > didn't need to re-read James' prose as I knew, or thought I knew, what
> > it was all about, already. In 3 seconds, I got to read this reply then
> > move on to the next....without scrolling an inch!
>
> Top posters don't know how to post correctly, at all.
>
> To respond to a post you need to TRIM the post and reply to it in line,
> so it's very easy to follow.
exactly.
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
I read several newsgroups that are fairly active. It is usually a
daily routine for me. I'm not the very sharpest blade in the
drawer, but even I can remember what someone else said yesterday,
or how another answered. Are people really so ignorant that they
need to be able to reread the post? I find snipping and inserting
to be so distracting that I toss the post. It is extremely
irritating to me. I resent scrolling to the bottom of a lengthy
diatribe to just end up seeing "Old Frank" or whomever responding
with his usual "me too".
In case you're so brain dead that you don't remember the rest of
the thread, it is below for you to refresh your memory.
--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens) dgriff237@7cox.net
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrngti5bo.cll.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Larry wrote on [Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:49:43 +0000]:
>> In reference to my previous post about how much more logical
>> top posting
>> is, this reply is a great example to prove my point. I got to
>> read
>> Frankster's two word reply to James' eloquent hypothesis,
>> instantly. I
>> didn't need to re-read James' prose as I knew, or thought I
>> knew, what
>> it was all about, already. In 3 seconds, I got to read this
>> reply then
>> move on to the next....without scrolling an inch!
>
> Top posters don't know how to post correctly, at all.
>
> To respond to a post you need to TRIM the post and reply to it
> in line,
> so it's very easy to follow.
I top post because I think it's more convenient for people to scroll through
a thread and not have to reread the original post multiple times. For those
people who can't remember the original post and previous replies they have
the option of scrolling down to refresh their memory!
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0A8FE8.21131304042009@news.individual.net...
> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>
> Definitions:
> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
> placed below the original text.
>
> We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by
> people who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net
> etiquette'. The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.
> In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant
> parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply
> directly beneath the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more
> about writing new posts. Check out this site:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
>
> Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
> top-posting.
>
> 1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following
> URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated but
> still has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this site:
>
> 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!
>
> 2. We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders like
> Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is the
> Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious
> bugs. Let us quote someone we know:
>
> "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
> probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
>
> We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to
> implement to put a signature at the end of the post instead of putting
> it directly above the post you are replying to and can not change the
> position. Forte Agent has as a feature that reply to a post it will
> remove the signature (recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space) and
> everything below it, so it will remove a part of the original message.
> This is good Usenet practice so Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on
> the other hand is faulty, check this bugreport regarding the Usenet
> signature delimiter.
>
> If you want to try Agent, you can get it here.
>
> 3. Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
> conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
> said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message
> is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read
> from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this
> convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the
> question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance
> increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the
> message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread
> was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will
> be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about,
> due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.
>
> 4. To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new
> text, it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and
> optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
> regard to one's reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts,
> because most top-posters leave the original message intact. All these
> long posts not only clutter up discussions, but they also clutter up the
> server space.
>
> 5. Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the
> relevant parts: it not possible to answer within the original message.
> Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder.
>
> 6. Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping.
> This can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start,
> and using only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do it
> manually, and that can be tiresome.
>
> 7. A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll
> to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always
> have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll
> back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have
> to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a
> counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the
> previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than
> scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is
> inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be
> simply unavailable.
>
> 8. Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in
> their charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch
> newsgroups, you will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you
> fail to follow Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according to
> the quoting guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the
> guidelines, if one does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one just
> subscribed to.
>
> We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for
> top-posting. The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people
> spend on making posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post,
> that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no
> irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the
> majority of the group will adhere to this convention, the group will be
> nicer, tidier and easier to read.
>
> As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means
> that the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely
> removed. It makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom
> one is replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong
> settings of news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to
> start with clean replies.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> --
> "You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
> of the fetus view the woman as a container."
> ==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
>
In article <7f992$49d95dbd$48097434$13122@CTITECH.COM>,
"Gary" <pawneev@aol.NOSPMcom> wrote:
> I top post because I think it's more convenient for people to scroll through
> a thread and not have to reread the original post multiple times.
you'll change your mind after you've been in newsgroups for a few days.
or maybe not. there's always oen out of every 100,000 that never catches
on.
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
I've been in newsgroups for awhile--not quite since the dawn of Usenet but
close. I guess that I'll never catch on. I started out with Bitnet and
listserve before Usenet and I still belong to some lists. But, as I said in
another thread, as much as I like Usenet better than forums and groups, I'm
afraid it's going the way of the Dodo bird.
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0E48C5.22120905042009@news.individual.net...
> In article <7f992$49d95dbd$48097434$13122@CTITECH.COM>,
> "Gary" <pawneev@aol.NOSPMcom> wrote:
>
>> I top post because I think it's more convenient for people to scroll
>> through
>> a thread and not have to reread the original post multiple times.
>
> you'll change your mind after you've been in newsgroups for a few days.
> or maybe not. there's always oen out of every 100,000 that never catches
> on.
>
> --
> "You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
> of the fetus view the woman as a container."
> ==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
>
I've been on em for a while too, matter of fact wrote/ran a BBS for 10 years
with 110 and 300 baud modems, considering the extremly slow transmission
speed back then, it was considered IMPOLITE to bottom post....
"Gary" <pawneev@aol.NOSPMcom> wrote in message
news:52e8b$49d96751$48097434$18568@CTITECH.COM...
> I've been in newsgroups for awhile--not quite since the dawn of Usenet but
> close. I guess that I'll never catch on. I started out with Bitnet and
> listserve before Usenet and I still belong to some lists. But, as I said
> in another thread, as much as I like Usenet better than forums and groups,
> I'm afraid it's going the way of the Dodo bird.
>
> --
> --
> Gary
> Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
> www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html
>
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-0E48C5.22120905042009@news.individual.net...
>> In article <7f992$49d95dbd$48097434$13122@CTITECH.COM>,
>> "Gary" <pawneev@aol.NOSPMcom> wrote:
>>
>>> I top post because I think it's more convenient for people to scroll
>>> through
>>> a thread and not have to reread the original post multiple times.
>>
>> you'll change your mind after you've been in newsgroups for a few days.
>> or maybe not. there's always oen out of every 100,000 that never catches
>> on.
>>
>> --
>> "You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
>> of the fetus view the woman as a container."
>> ==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock,.cray.com>
>>
>
In article <52e8b$49d96751$48097434$18568@CTITECH.COM>,
"Gary" <pawneev@aol.NOSPMcom> wrote:
> I've been in newsgroups for awhile--not quite since the dawn of Usenet but
> close.
like i said, there is often one if every 100,000 or so who never catch
on, lifelong newbies so to speak.
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
Peter Pan wrote:
> I've been on em for a while too, matter of fact wrote/ran a BBS for 10
> years with 110 and 300 baud modems, considering the extremly slow
> transmission speed back then, it was considered IMPOLITE to bottom post....
>
Since we now have somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 times the
bandwidth available, I'm inclined to doubt that the customs of
twenty-five years ago are relevant!
jon.in.durham wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>>
>> Definitions:
>> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
>> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
>> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
>> placed below the original text.
>
> It's all Micro$oft's fault because their lousy Windoze Email/News
> client always puts the cursor at the *TOP* of the reply text instead
> of the *BOTTOM* were it should be, so the Windroids (who aren't the
> sharpest tools in the box) are too lazy or stupid to move the cursor
> below the text.
> Micro$oft are part of the axis of evil
>
>
Too much complaining, not enough solution.
This is fixed easily enough. Download Quotefix for Outlook Express. It's
free and it's easy. http://home.cs.tum.edu/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/.
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>
>
Frankly, I always thought that this top- vs. bottom- posting issue was one
of the more asinine set of 'rules' I had ever seen, from the first time I
was 'criticized' for top-posting when I was newer at usenet groups. I think
it's made even more asinine by the fact that people will actually waste time
flaming you for top posting. There are others in this thread who have made
some valid arguments for the merits of top posting. And their arguments are
reasonable imho.
Where these conventions come from is beyond me since I've been an internet
and email user before there was a graphical www. How they became written in
stone and who the so-called 'experts' were who decided on these rules is
beyond me even more.
By the way, I don't know ANYONE who does anything but top post in regular
email.
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Peter Pan wrote:
>> I've been on em for a while too, matter of fact wrote/ran a BBS for
>> 10 years with 110 and 300 baud modems, considering the extremly slow
>> transmission speed back then, it was considered IMPOLITE to bottom
>> post....
>
> Since we now have somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 times the
> bandwidth available, I'm inclined to doubt that the customs of
> twenty-five years ago are relevant!
>
Perhaps. But that doesn't make bottom posting the new 'relevant' custom
either. It's neither more or less 'relevant', just different. Read all the
posts. There are some valid arguments for top posting.
In article <af-dnYEEwfHW50TUnZ2dnUVZ_j4LAAAA@giganews.com>,
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> Peter Pan wrote:
> > I've been on em for a while too, matter of fact wrote/ran a BBS for 10
> > years with 110 and 300 baud modems, considering the extremly slow
> > transmission speed back then, it was considered IMPOLITE to bottom post....
> >
>
> Since we now have somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 times the
> bandwidth available, I'm inclined to doubt that the customs of
> twenty-five years ago are relevant!
do you read the 1st chapter of a book before you read the 2nd?
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> I think my trouble is I don't "do well" being told by some ******* that
> thinks he's bigger or better or has a larger penis than I do, what I
> MUST do. *
Fair enough. However, the real underlying question is if you care.
If you care that your words are important enough for others to read,
then its your responsibility to make sure that you've made it as easy
as possible for all readers to understand you ... and also for you to
respect your readers in not wasting their time.
> Actually top posting makes a lot of sense, especially when the replies
> include the full text of some lengthy prose. *Like a good news article
> in a newspaper, the meat of the article is in the first paragraph and
> you get to see the reply to the post immediately, without all the
> scrolling and scrolling down to his answer:
>
> "That's just not right."
>
> Which, had it been at the TOP of the post would have saved you 95% of
> the traveling time, had it been where it belonged....right at the top,
> under the headline.
True, but this assumes that all readers had already read the
chronologically prior part of the thread. This assumption carries at
least three significant flaws.
> Just because "we've always done it that way", doesn't mean it makes
> any sense, or is logical, at all.
True, but this erroneously assumes that alternatives haven't been
tried.
> With the original text on the bottom, it becomes a footnote to your
> reply, a complimentary reference to be read only if you need to refer to
> the original text to associate what this guy says in relation to what
> he's replying to. *Who needs to be presented with the old post BEFORE he
> gets to read the reply....holding you up and wearing out your arrow keys
> or mouse wheel? *It's just stupid...sort of like religion.
Or you simply don't appreciate the shortcomings of your assumptions of
where the value-added is/isn't.
> Sometimes a little anarchy corrects stupid mistakes.
Unfortunately, much of the 'stupid mistake' is in the poor judgement
to use the default settings of a common Mail application for open
form group communications. The communication forms aren't identical,
which leads to better/worse techniques of communication.
In one-to-many venues, the result is that the most value-added
messages are those that are self-contained in form and context, so as
to be of the greatest value to the reader with the least amount of
********. For anything less, the writer is being selfishly lazy and
thus, illustrates that he doesn't give a damn about the other readers.
Carl wrote:
> jon.in.durham wrote:
>> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
>>> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>>>
>>> Definitions:
>>> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one
>>> replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
>>> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is
>>> placed below the original text.
>> It's all Micro$oft's fault because their lousy Windoze Email/News
>> client always puts the cursor at the *TOP* of the reply text instead
>> of the *BOTTOM* were it should be, so the Windroids (who aren't the
>> sharpest tools in the box) are too lazy or stupid to move the cursor
>> below the text.
>> Micro$oft are part of the axis of evil
>>
>>
> Too much complaining, not enough solution.
> This is fixed easily enough. Download Quotefix for Outlook Express. It's
> free and it's easy. http://home.cs.tum.edu/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/.
>
>
>
>
Even easier: don't use Outlook or Outlook Express! There are
alternatives. Thunderbird is one.
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-556037.07291306042009@news.individual.net...
> In article <af-dnYEEwfHW50TUnZ2dnUVZ_j4LAAAA@giganews.com>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Pan wrote:
>> > I've been on em for a while too, matter of fact wrote/ran a BBS for 10
>> > years with 110 and 300 baud modems, considering the extremly slow
>> > transmission speed back then, it was considered IMPOLITE to bottom
>> > post....
>> >
>>
>> Since we now have somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 times the
>> bandwidth available, I'm inclined to doubt that the customs of
>> twenty-five years ago are relevant!
>
> do you read the 1st chapter of a book before you read the 2nd?
>
No, but I am smart enuf to put a piece of paper on my bosses desk on top of
the stuff in his inbox, instead of lifting all the papers to put it on the
bottom
nor do i reply at the bottom of email
nor do I post mail in the top of a mailbox and hit it with my car so it
turns over and the bottom becomes the top
and used a text interface/crt screen on my old puter with no graphics
scrolling capabilitty (both an apple 2 and mainframe with CRT terminal
neither of which scrolled/paged back, nor did the unix mainframe at the
university)..... lets see, when did graphical windows come out that you
could scroll down and back up? (ps, 110 and 300 baud modems 25 years ago?
(nope try 40))
sometimes when travelling, i still use my cellphone at qnc speeds (14.4) or
dial-up in a rural area at maybe 22kb (thats not 10,000 to 100,000 times)...
aren't they pushing for high speed rural internet now in the stimulus?
doesn't that mean that some people don't have high speed yet?
guess in your mind, people have to have high speed internet, and newer
computers with windows/scrollable windows, and usenet wasn't developed/used
before either......
> I top post because I think it's more convenient for people to scroll through
> a thread and not have to reread the original post multiple times. For those
> people who can't remember the original post and previous replies they have
> the option of scrolling down to refresh their memory!
you are incorrect for the simple reason that someone that joins a thread
after it's initiated, can't follow the thread in the correct order.
top posting is perfectly fine for one to one emails. but when you get to
"groups" of people, bottom posting is the only way that works.
you'll be considered a newbie until you do it correctly.
> I'm not the very sharpest blade in the
> drawer, but even I can remember what someone else said yesterday,
> or how another answered. Are people really so ignorant that they
> need to be able to reread the post?
The problem is that not all posts are propagated to all news servers. If
you don't get the previous post you may not know what the reply is referring
to.
It is a good feature to clip out all unnecessary text however, as I did in
this reply. Very easy to do with the right news reader software.
> you'll be considered a newbie until you do it correctly.
**NEWBIES UNTIE!** LOL
Pardon me, but I think I'll do it anyway I please. Period. Sometimes I like
it on top. Sometimes I like it on the bottom. Just depends. Lest you think
I'm making a pun... I am. But that's okay, it applies to both.
Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting 
Linear Mode
