Are we Top Posting now?

[Fred Marshall]

Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?

Fred

[Jerry Avins]

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?
Fred

Fred,

I see a place for both top and bottom posting. When adding to an ongoing
discussion, appending ones words to the end makes sense. The reader sees
the points in chronological order. When commenting on a thread as a
whole, top posting leaves the remaining words as a footnote, for
reference. For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

Jerry

[Fred Marshall]

Post by Jerry Avins

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?
Fred

Fred,
I see a place for both top and bottom posting. When adding to an ongoing
discussion, appending ones words to the end makes sense. The reader sees
the points in chronological order. When commenting on a thread as a
whole, top posting leaves the remaining words as a footnote, for
reference.

Jerry,

OK - we agree...

Fred

[Bob Cain]

Post by Jerry Avins
For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

But what remains a practical issue is trimming. Always a
problem with this group of lazy bones.


Bob

[Graeme]

Post by Bob Cain

Post by Jerry Avins
For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

But what remains a practical issue is trimming. Always a
problem with this group of lazy bones.

Well, this is one of the better groups with regard to newsgroup etiquette
that I subscribe to. What really annoys me (with regards to newsgroups) are
people that post with a 4-line automated preamble, then their one or two
words of gospel, their name, and lastly the maximum 4-line sig. The amount
of data in these posts can be as little as 2.5% (sadly I've just worked this
out). I could go on, but I'll leave that for another time.

Incidentally, should it be "what really annoys me ARE people..." or "what
really annoys me IS people..." ?

[John Aderseen]

What really annoys me is thalks having nothing to do with DSP ...

Post by Graeme

Post by Bob Cain

Post by Jerry Avins
For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

But what remains a practical issue is trimming. Always a
problem with this group of lazy bones.

Well, this is one of the better groups with regard to newsgroup etiquette
that I subscribe to. What really annoys me (with regards to newsgroups) are
people that post with a 4-line automated preamble, then their one or two
words of gospel, their name, and lastly the maximum 4-line sig. The amount
of data in these posts can be as little as 2.5% (sadly I've just worked this
out). I could go on, but I'll leave that for another time.
Incidentally, should it be "what really annoys me ARE people..." or "what
really annoys me IS people..." ?

[Bernhard Holzmayer]

Post by John Aderseen
What really annoys me is thalks having nothing to do with DSP ...

So do I - and I frequently use this "ignore thread" command which my
news reader provides.

However, things which have to do with the fellows of this group,
are important - IMHO.
Therefore I followed this thread, trying to catch ideas/portions of
the spirit of the posters.
It's like while talking about the weather, we listen to the tone
indicating the mood of the other person...

My opinion to the topic:
If my response is specific to one item which the OP mentioned,
I usually keep the whole content and insert my contribution where
it seems appropriate.
If I respond to an item which can stand for itself (to my opinion),
I cut away all the rest which seems unnecessary.

If I cannot locate a position where I should insert my answer,
I respond by top posting.

What I normally don't do is append my contribution to the end.
It's convenient if I can see the new contribution in the first
screen (maybe 30..40 lines).
If the thread grows, it would happen that the new part falls below
and I'd have to scroll first. In this case,
I'd prefer that people would either top post or cut - and I would.

Bernhard

[Jerry Avins]

Post by Jerry Avins
For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

But what remains a practical issue is trimming. Always a problem with
this group of lazy bones.
Bob

I tend to cut gingerly. Laziness is only indirectly a factor. I've been
accused, justly on occasion, of snipping the germane lines. The effort
to avoid that -- seeing the message from every conceivable viewpoint --
dissuades me. Modems have come a long way since we did usenet at 1200
baud. The reasons for snipping are fewer now.

Jerry

[Al Clark]

Bob Cain <***@arcanemethods.com> wrote in news:***@enews3.newsguy.com:

Sometimes I top post where the thread is long and already repeated a
dozen times

Post by Bob Cain

Post by Jerry Avins
For some it's a religious issue, rather like the Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians with boiled eggs. I think that's silly.

Snippets are nice to respond to a specific point and keep the context.
Jerry, did you really know how to spell "Brobdingnagians" without looking
it up?

Post by Bob Cain
But what remains a practical issue is trimming. Always a
problem with this group of lazy bones.
Bob

As the thread takes a life of its own, I think the bottom helps preserve
the flow of the conversation, but I agree that trimming is helpful in
this case.

Thanks for letting me waste your time reading this drivel and making you
use the scroll bar. I'm sure glad this is a friendly group ;-)

[Jerry Avins]

Post by Al Clark
Sometimes I top post where the thread is long and already repeated a
dozen times

...

Post by Al Clark
Snippets are nice to respond to a specific point and keep the context.
Jerry, did you really know how to spell "Brobdingnagians" without looking
it up?

I looked it up to check -- Google is quick! -- but It turned out that I
had gotten it right (this time).

...

Post by Al Clark
As the thread takes a life of its own, I think the bottom helps preserve
the flow of the conversation, but I agree that trimming is helpful in
this case.
Thanks for letting me waste your time reading this drivel and making you
use the scroll bar. I'm sure glad this is a friendly group ;-)

When I believe the meat is only at the bottom and the bottom is a long
way off, I go there with <ctrl>+end.

Jerry

[Matt Timmermans]

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?

No big, really, but...

The only thing worse than top posting is quoting a whole lengthy message to
post a quick comment at the bottom. This is especially true if the comment
is "STOP TOP POSTING!".

I think that people who won't take the time to quote selectively should go
ahead and top-post as the next-best alternative, or don't quote the original
message at all.

[Airy R. Bean]

All in favour myself.

You don't have to page down through the mire of previous
quotations, most of which have been repeated ad nauseam,
to reach the new material.

If you're in a hurry, then you don't have time to page down anyway,
and your effort in bottom posting may be passed over unseen.

If you're following a thread, then most of the history is annoying
because you remember it anyway.

If you're being so silly as to join a thread in the middle, then the
history stuff is there for you to read, but it's not forced onto you.

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?

[Unbeliever]

All depends on your POV, some people enjoy the psychological
self-flagellation of an old text based interface, and are just as annoyed at
having to scroll UP through history as you are to scroll down through
history. Can't imagine it would be too hard to write a rule based script to
convert post to your particular pet endian-ness, if you're a fetishist about
such things. What annoys me more is people like the OP who feel it
necessary to comment on such things and people like me who feel it necessary
to reply. :o)

Cheers,
Alf.

Post by Airy R. Bean
All in favour myself.
You don't have to page down through the mire of previous
quotations, most of which have been repeated ad nauseam,
to reach the new material.
If you're in a hurry, then you don't have time to page down anyway,
and your effort in bottom posting may be passed over unseen.
If you're following a thread, then most of the history is annoying
because you remember it anyway.
If you're being so silly as to join a thread in the middle, then the
history stuff is there for you to read, but it's not forced onto you.

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 31/01/2004

[Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.]

Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
around or jump into the middle of a thread. Bottom posting will annoy
that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the bottom
of a post nearly instantly anyway. Choose who you prefer to annoy and
post away.


IMHO. YMMV.

[jim]

Post by Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
around or jump into the middle of a thread. Bottom posting will annoy
that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the bottom
of a post nearly instantly anyway. Choose who you prefer to annoy and
post away.

I agree with Jerry I would prefer that people top post and leave the
original message at the bottom as reference if they are just making a
general comment. Snipping the entire original message and commenting in
a vacuum is far more annoying than top posting or bottom posting.

-jim


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jon Harris]

To summarize:

1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.

I hope that clears it up! ;-)

Post by jim

Post by Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
around or jump into the middle of a thread. Bottom posting will annoy
that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the bottom
of a post nearly instantly anyway. Choose who you prefer to annoy and
post away.

I agree with Jerry I would prefer that people top post and leave the
original message at the bottom as reference if they are just making a
general comment. Snipping the entire original message and commenting in
a vacuum is far more annoying than top posting or bottom posting.
-jim
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jerry Avins]

Post by Jon Harris
1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
I hope that clears it up! ;-)

Post by jim

Post by Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Top posting will annoy that percentage of readers who like to skip
around or jump into the middle of a thread. Bottom posting will annoy
that percentage who are following a thread in order and are reading on a
system with small windows or slow scrolling where you can't see the

bottom

Wanna bet? :-)

Post by Jon Harris

Post by jim

Post by Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
of a post nearly instantly anyway. Choose who you prefer to annoy and
post away.

I agree with Jerry I would prefer that people top post and leave the
original message at the bottom as reference if they are just making a
general comment. Snipping the entire original message and commenting in
a vacuum is far more annoying than top posting or bottom posting.
-jim
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Ian Buckner]

Post by Jon Harris
1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
I hope that clears it up! ;-)

Astonishing - I bet this is the only group with a thread containing
top, bottom and mid postings, and nobody has blown a gasket yet!

Regards
Ian

;-)

[Mike Yarwood]

Yay- that's a relief to me too ; my editor leaves the insert fllashing
wibbly thing at the top of all the typing and I hardly ever remember to push
the down button. Glad nobody really cares.
Mike

Post by Ian Buckner

Post by Jon Harris
1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
I hope that clears it up! ;-)

Astonishing - I bet this is the only group with a thread containing
top, bottom and mid postings, and nobody has blown a gasket yet!
Regards
Ian
;-)

[Bob White]

I've seen a lot of instances of both in other groups, plus the occasional
posting where replies are interspersed with previous paragraphs. I've also
seen users ostracized for not snipping. Mostly, I've seen top posting. One
gets used to reading whole threads backwards if it is necessary to catch up.
But overall, I'm glad to have seen this thread because I had never heard the
terms "top post" or "bottom post" before. Do you suppose the Federal
Government should get involved because we have failed to regulate ourselves?
Bob White

Post by Mike Yarwood
Yay- that's a relief to me too ; my editor leaves the insert fllashing
wibbly thing at the top of all the typing and I hardly ever remember to push
the down button. Glad nobody really cares.
Mike

Post by Ian Buckner

Post by Jon Harris
1. Sometimes we should top post, other times we should bottom post.
2. Sometimes we should snip, sometimes we should leave intact.
3. No matter what, someone will be annoyed.
I hope that clears it up! ;-)

Astonishing - I bet this is the only group with a thread containing
top, bottom and mid postings, and nobody has blown a gasket yet!
Regards
Ian
;-)

[Paul Russell]

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?

A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Paul

[RVMJ 99g]

Post by Paul Russell

Post by Fred Marshall
Seems like there've been a lot of top posts lately. In view of past
practice, I find it just a bit confusing. Any similar reactions?

A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

You've done it now.

Bean will doubtless be along in a minute to give his standard lecture
on why top-posting is acceptable.

[h***@40th.com]

Is this top posting, or are you talking about dates? Probably
this, but if you don't like, you have a space bar, yes? Use
it.

It's absurd to have to "defend" this sort of thing since ONLY
newbies do it differently, but since I like to stamp out blissful
ignorance every odd minute of every odd day of every odd leap
year, here you go.

For one thing, posting UNDER old news is a waste of effort. For
another, posting UNDER a mountain of old news makes for something
that will never, ever be seen in googlenews (history of usenet),
since that only shows the first 50 or so lines, without taking
extra effort. And really, talking about this is not worth it.
I'll be back in about 8 years to stamp out some more.

Post by RVMJ 99g
You've done it now.
on why top-posting is acceptable.

[RVMJ 99g]

Post by h***@40th.com
For one thing, posting UNDER old news is a waste of effort.

So is top posting, for the same reason.

Post by h***@40th.com
.For another, posting UNDER a mountain of old news makes for something
that will never, ever be seen in googlenews (history of usenet),
since that only shows the first 50 or so lines, without taking
extra effort.

What sort of person has their postings archived? Sheesh!

As for effort, perhaps you'd better lie down in a dark room!

Post by h***@40th.com
And really, talking about this is not worth it.
I'll be back in about 8 years to stamp out some more.

Whoopee-doo. Have a nice time.

[Gary P. Fiber]

Post by RVMJ 99g

Post by h***@40th.com
For one thing, posting UNDER old news is a waste of effort.

So is top posting, for the same reason.

Post by h***@40th.com
.For another, posting UNDER a mountain of old news makes for something
that will never, ever be seen in googlenews (history of usenet),
since that only shows the first 50 or so lines, without taking
extra effort.

What sort of person has their postings archived? Sheesh!
As for effort, perhaps you'd better lie down in a dark room!

Post by h***@40th.com
And really, talking about this is not worth it.
I'll be back in about 8 years to stamp out some more.

Whoopee-doo. Have a nice time.

I did a google search under news groups on my name and there are
posting's archived from 1997. Its Interesting, stuff there I
completely forgot I wrote.

I never knew what top or bottom posting was until I read this thread,
I would guess this is the proper way to post a response. Under
paragraphs and paragraphs of earlier posts. That way we can have pages
of old posts to reread to get to the jest of the new addition. Always
something new to learn on the proper use of usenet. I used to top post
too sorry for the mis use of usenet. I usually fine if I have been
reading the thread, I am up to speed on the replies to the original
question, but for the new reader who comes in the middle of the thread
after passing it by for a few rounds then bottom posting is
beneficial.


Gary K8IZ
Washington State Resident
Registered Linux User # 312991

[Airy R. Bean]

The advantage of top-posting is that if you are following a thread
regularly, then you are not forced to wade through oft-repeated
and tedious reminders of what you have seen so many times before,
but, on the rare occasions when something slips your mind, you
can page down to it.

Also, when following threads where otherwise the bottom-posters
would have followed their wont for posting without clipping, you
don't have to resort to page downing, you can just keep nexting to browse
through the thread.

Post by Gary P. Fiber
I never knew what top or bottom posting was until I read this thread,
I would guess this is the proper way to post a response. Under
paragraphs and paragraphs of earlier posts. That way we can have pages
of old posts to reread to get to the jest of the new addition.

[RVMJ 99g]

Post by Airy R. Bean
The advantage of top-posting is that if you are following a thread
regularly, then you are not forced to wade through oft-repeated
and tedious reminders of what you have seen so many times before,
but, on the rare occasions when something slips your mind, you
can page down to it.
Also, when following threads where otherwise the bottom-posters
would have followed their wont for posting without clipping, you
don't have to resort to page downing, you can just keep nexting to browse
through the thread.

See my response to Gary on this topic. Note that the first part of
your second paragraph applies with equal vigour to your first
paragraph, thus rubbishing your own argument in one neat move.

Well Done!

[RVMJ 99g]

Post by Gary P. Fiber
I never knew what top or bottom posting was until I read this thread

Well, we all live and learn, mostly.

Post by Gary P. Fiber
I would guess this is the proper way to post a response.

There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
part of the responder.

Post by Gary P. Fiber
Under
paragraphs and paragraphs of earlier posts. That way we can have pages
of old posts to reread to get to the jest of the new addition.

You gist, of course. Both top-posting and bottom-posting lack the
continuity given by thoughtful trimming, with points answered in turn.

HTH

[Bob Cain]

Post by RVMJ 99g
There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
part of the responder.

Which is why it is unlikely to be employed by a lot of
people who feel entitled to the extra effort that simple top
or bottom replies impose on all who read them.


Bob

[Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.]

Post by Bob Cain

Post by RVMJ 99g
There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
part of the responder.

Which is why it is unlikely to be employed by a lot of
people who feel entitled to the extra effort that simple top
or bottom replies impose on all who read them.

How soon we forget that a significant percentage of people on the net
do not have fast connections and have to pay for their connect time.

...but our time is so much more valuable that we can just make those
poor wretches wait for pages of redundant quotes to download before they
can see our valuable pearls of wisdom...

...then flame then into toast for complaining. The net is such a
polite setting.

<ob dsp>
Does anyone know what if and what kind of DSP chip those cable modem
and DSL boxes, which allow many of us fast net accesss, might use?
</ob>

IMHO. YMMV.

[Jon Harris]

Post by Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.

Post by Bob Cain

Post by RVMJ 99g
There is no prescribed way to reply to a post. The best way, for all
concerned, is to trim the post to the points you are replying to, and
intersperse your responses accordingly. I'm sure if you look about
you'll find examples of this. But it requires a little effort on the
part of the responder.

Which is why it is unlikely to be employed by a lot of
people who feel entitled to the extra effort that simple top
or bottom replies impose on all who read them.

How soon we forget that a significant percentage of people on the net
do not have fast connections and have to pay for their connect time.

Is that really true? Almost all dial-up services these days are either
unlimited time or many more hours than the typical person really uses. For
reading text-only Usenet, I consider 56K "fast".

Post by Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
...but our time is so much more valuable that we can just make those
poor wretches wait for pages of redundant quotes to download before they
can see our valuable pearls of wisdom...

On my newsreader, you can't see any part of a message, or scroll down, until
the entire message is downloaded. So it's a moot point.

I can summarize all the points made to date as following:

1. Top posting is better in some situations (e.g. when quickly/actively
monitoring a thread for new messages, for the way it is archived in Google)
2. Bottom posting is better in some situations (e.g. when you want to read
an entire thread in sequence/coming in late)
3. No matter which one you use, someone will complain!

[Bob Cain]

Post by Jon Harris
1. Top posting is better in some situations (e.g. when quickly/actively
monitoring a thread for new messages, for the way it is archived in Google)
2. Bottom posting is better in some situations (e.g. when you want to read
an entire thread in sequence/coming in late)
3. No matter which one you use, someone will complain!

That strikes me as a summary of the points you heard rather
than the ones that were made.


Bob

[Jon Harris]

At the risk of extending this already long and OT thread, I'll bite: what
did I miss? I don't see how I can be too far off base by stating that both
methods have advantages and disadvantages and proponents and detractors.

Post by Bob Cain

Post by Jon Harris
1. Top posting is better in some situations (e.g. when quickly/actively
monitoring a thread for new messages, for the way it is archived in Google)
2. Bottom posting is better in some situations (e.g. when you want to read
an entire thread in sequence/coming in late)
3. No matter which one you use, someone will complain!

That strikes me as a summary of the points you heard rather
than the ones that were made.

[Bob Cain]

Post by Jon Harris
At the risk of extending this already long and OT thread, I'll bite: what
did I miss? I don't see how I can be too far off base by stating that both
methods have advantages and disadvantages and proponents and detractors.

A couple of us indicated that neither solution is optimal
for the reader. What flows best is to trim what is
unnecessasary and to intersperse responses among what
remains as appropriate, with the response following the
point being responded to.

If there is only one point being responded to, such as in
this one, then its a trimmed form of bottom posting.

For some time I've just been skipping over posts that go on
at length with unnecessasary quotes to get to the (usually
tiny) meat of the response at the bottom or those that jump
right in at the top with a bunch of stuff for which context
hasn't been established.


Bob

[Jon Harris]

OK, that's fair. So we have 3 options: top, interspersed/middle (with
trimming), and bottom.

Post by Bob Cain

Post by Jon Harris
At the risk of extending this already long and OT thread, I'll bite: what
did I miss? I don't see how I can be too far off base by stating that both
methods have advantages and disadvantages and proponents and detractors.

A couple of us indicated that neither solution is optimal
for the reader. What flows best is to trim what is
unnecessasary and to intersperse responses among what
remains as appropriate, with the response following the
point being responded to.
If there is only one point being responded to, such as in
this one, then its a trimmed form of bottom posting.
For some time I've just been skipping over posts that go on
at length with unnecessasary quotes to get to the (usually
tiny) meat of the response at the bottom or those that jump
right in at the top with a bunch of stuff for which context
hasn't been established.