Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / UK Car Forums / 4x4 Cars (UK group) / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

TOP POSTING

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
common sense - 16 Apr 2007 13:04 GMT
Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
'Mike' - 16 Apr 2007 13:12 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

I'll see what I can do for you.

Mike

Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

ian henden - 22 Apr 2007 21:44 GMT
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>> for the
>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric

And I am moving towards top=posting for you, but have only got halfway so
far.

>> interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

--
IanH

> I'll see what I can do for you.
>
> Mike
Rose - 22 Apr 2007 22:09 GMT
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>>> for the
>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>
> And I am moving towards top=posting for you, but have only got halfway so
> far.
I like it.
Signature

He He He <smirk> Tee Hee Hee
On this the 22/04/2007 22:10:26 AD in the final year of Blairs Bullshit.

Adrian - 16 Apr 2007 13:13 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
> NERDishness

Eat sh.t, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.
Tommy - 16 Apr 2007 13:19 GMT
Adrain wrote:

>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
>> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
>> NERDishness
>
> Eat sh.t, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.

Its a joke is it?

ADrain and sh1t?
Huge - 16 Apr 2007 13:27 GMT
> Adrain wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Its a joke is it?

No.

Top posting because that's where that brain damaged piece of crap Outlook
Express leaves the cursor is like sh.tting your pants because that's
where your arsehole is.

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

JFGrieve - 16 Apr 2007 16:28 GMT
>> Adrain wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Outlook Express leaves the cursor is like sh.tting your pants because
> that's where your arsehole is.

If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Signature

JFG

The Wanderer - 16 Apr 2007 16:42 GMT
<snip>

> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
themselves?

Signature

the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

webreader - 16 Apr 2007 17:07 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> --
> the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

More to the point is why not use it? It works, it's free & it takes
seconds to install.
Oh & JF likes it.

WS
John Briggs - 16 Apr 2007 17:09 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't
> fix themselves?

You've answered your own question: because M$ have known about it for years
but won't fix it themselves :-)
Signature

John Briggs

Brownz @ Work - 19 Apr 2007 14:29 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> You've answered your own question: because M$ have known about it for
> years but won't fix it themselves :-)

Ahh... but they have in Windoze Mail that ships with Fista.
You do have to tell it to do it though.

Signature

Cheerz - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/

Huge - 19 Apr 2007 15:01 GMT
> Ahh... but they have in Windoze Mail that ships with Fista.

Fista? Excellent! Consider that stolen.

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Ed Chilada - 16 Apr 2007 19:09 GMT
><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>themselves?

What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
consider it to be wrong in the first place.
BrianE - 16 Apr 2007 19:24 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
> consider it to be wrong in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think MS recommend OE Quotefix as a download
from their site..

Just use Thunderbird or SeaMonkey.
Ed Chilada - 16 Apr 2007 20:12 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Correct me if I'm wrong, I think MS recommend OE Quotefix as a download
>from their site..

Difficult to prove you wrong, because it's difficult to prove a
negative! Of course, there's a world of difference between it being a
download on the MS website, and someone from Microsoft suggesting it
in their blog.

>Just use Thunderbird or SeaMonkey.

Or Agent!
Jim - 17 Apr 2007 08:19 GMT
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Or Agent!
Well, anyone using Outlook Express has bigger problems than worrying
about top posting!
JFGrieve - 17 Apr 2007 17:17 GMT
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Well, anyone using Outlook Express has bigger problems than worrying
> about top posting!

You might be right, but can you tell us what those problems are?

Signature

JFG

Abo - 17 Apr 2007 10:14 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
> consider it to be wrong in the first place.

Just because Microsoft think something doesn't make it the truth

Signature

Abo
BATracer: Browser Based Racing Simulation:
http://batracer.com/-1FrontPage.htm?6q0

Ed Chilada - 18 Apr 2007 08:47 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Just because Microsoft think something doesn't make it the truth

Sure. And just because loads of people don't like the way Microsoft
have implemented something, doesn't make it wrong and doesn't oblige
Microsoft to change anything.
NM - 18 Apr 2007 09:12 GMT
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> have implemented something, doesn't make it wrong and doesn't oblige
> Microsoft to change anything.

One is not obliged to use micro$oft but it's easier if you don't/can't
think.
Abo - 17 Apr 2007 10:13 GMT
>>> Adrain wrote:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

And causes new ones

Signature

Abo
BATracer: Browser Based Racing Simulation:
http://batracer.com/-1FrontPage.htm?6q0

Phil Stovell - 16 Apr 2007 13:15 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
> interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Well, I'm a nerdy Linux user who will continue to bottom post.

Signature

Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Huge - 16 Apr 2007 13:18 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

        \|||/      
        (o o)      
,----ooO--(_)-------.
| Please            |
|   don't feed the  |
|     TROLL's !     |
'--------------Ooo--'
       |__|__|      
        || ||      
       ooO Ooo      

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Dogpoop - 16 Apr 2007 14:55 GMT
common sense <microsoft@kqwertt.com> typed:
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

OK

...... oh, er sorry.

What I meant to say was ...

f.ck off.  :)

Signature

Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Steve - 16 Apr 2007 21:21 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Why would you want to do that?

What sense does it make to have a reply in front of the question???
Alan Holmes - 16 Apr 2007 22:45 GMT
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> What sense does it make to have a reply in front of the question???

None at all!
Alan Holmes - 16 Apr 2007 22:50 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

No, becasue it does not make sense to have to read the asnwer to a query
before you read the query!

A really stupid suggestion.

I use Outlok Express and with that there is no trouble at all in putting
your comment below that of the original poster.

I suspect that a large number of other net readers will allow you to do
that, it's just laziness on the part of posters which shows them always to
use top posting to reply to articles.

So, don't be so bloody lazy, learn how to move the cursor down the page to
the right place!
Rob. - 17 Apr 2007 07:22 GMT
Regards :-)

Whatever you feel the Top-Poster is quite obviously one of these.
"A complete moron". I do not want to denigrate any human being.
I am not interested in throwing insults or calling someone else
languages can suggest one that is? Anyway I can't think of one now.
is written from bottom to top.  I wonder if any resident expert on world
and Hebrew are written right to left IIRC but I don't think that either
read from left to right and top to bottom.  I realise that Chinese
Top-Posting. Most people in English speaking news groups will
Presumably this will make perfect sense  to anyone who prefers

I would just like to comment:

>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I use Outlok Express and with that there is no trouble at all in putting
> your comment below that of the original poster.
Adrian - 17 Apr 2007 07:52 GMT
> Regards :-)
>
> Whatever you feel the Top-Poster is quite obviously one of these.
> "A complete moron".

(Top-posed, of course)

> I would just like to comment:

So would I. You're a fuckwit. An illiterate fuckwit.
Phil Aypee - 17 Apr 2007 08:47 GMT
Hi Adrian,

Rob's post made sense to me (which doesn't mean I agree with him).
If you had read it from bottom to top it might have made sense to you.

To call him "an illiterate fuckwit" is silly, especially when you wrote "Top-posed, of course".
I assume you meant "Top-posted, of course", not a culpable spelling error but still an error.

And you should note that it was *not* a top post in the usual sense of that (carping) criticism.

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

Brimstone - 17 Apr 2007 09:17 GMT
> Hi Adrian,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> And you should note that it was *not* a top post in the usual sense of
> that (carping) criticism.

Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in the
sh.t, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee hee)
Adrian - 17 Apr 2007 10:37 GMT
> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
> the sh.t, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
> hee)

But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up and
laugh at myself...
Rob. - 17 Apr 2007 18:19 GMT
>> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
>> the sh.t, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
>> hee)
>
> But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up and
> laugh at myself...

No hard feelings then?
Adrian - 18 Apr 2007 12:11 GMT
>>> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
>>> the sh.t, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
>>> hee)

>> But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up
>> and laugh at myself...

> No hard feelings then?

f.ck, no. Life's too short to take Usenet seriously.
Brimstone - 18 Apr 2007 12:29 GMT
>>>> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
>>>> the sh.t, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> f.ck, no. Life's too short to take Usenet seriously.

Not that there's much option anyway.
Adrian - 17 Apr 2007 10:37 GMT
> Rob's post made sense to me (which doesn't mean I agree with him).
> If you had read it from bottom to top it might have made sense to you.

Indeed it would...

> To call him "an illiterate fuckwit" is silly, especially when you
> wrote "Top-posed, of course". I assume you meant "Top-posted, of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Take care,
> Phil.

There is only thing I can say.

"D'oh".

I are an illiterate fuckwit.
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 11:27 GMT
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>No, becasue it does not make sense to have to read the asnwer to a query
>before you read the query!

The original query is in the previous post in the thread, which a
threading newsreader (and we all have those these days, right?), will
show you in a glance. If you're following a thread then you'll have
only just read the query in its original post.

Not all people make queries or answers when posting to usenet.
Sometimes people want to say something and a quoted context isn't
required. There's no need to quote what someone else just said before
saying their piece.

It's crazy that people can assume that *everyone* wants to use usenet
in the same way as them and therefore their own preferences ought to
be relevant, apply and be adopted by absolutely everyone.
Alan Holmes - 20 Apr 2007 11:51 GMT
So if you do not quote whatever you answer to, how is any other reader going
to know what the hell you are talking about?

>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> required. There's no need to quote what someone else just said before
> saying their piece.
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 12:18 GMT
>So if you do not quote whatever you answer to, how is any other reader going
>to know what the hell you are talking about?

Because like I say, a top-posted comment often doesn't directly relate
to a comment of the other post and therefore doesn't need to supply a
context quote. You know what they're talking about, because all that
they're talking about is contained in what they say.

Perhaps look at it this way, you don't need a quote for the very first
post in a thread - yet it stands up in its own right and isn't
confusing. Top-posters often like to carry on in this self-contained
post fashion. Perhaps you could argue that it's a reflection of how
little they're actually taking on board of the previous post, but
that's another argument.
mattic - 01 May 2007 15:35 GMT
I prefer top-posting. I can remember what has been posted before and needn't
re-read the thread.

Having said that, I have no problem with top, bottom or split posting and
certainly wouldn't be so rude as to insist others do what I want nor heap
derision upon them for not doing so.

>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> So, don't be so bloody lazy, learn how to move the cursor down the page to
> the right place!
John E - 01 May 2007 16:25 GMT
>I prefer top-posting. I can remember what has been posted before and
>needn't re-read the thread.
>
> Having said that, I have no problem with top, bottom or split posting and
> certainly wouldn't be so rude as to insist others do what I want nor heap
> derision upon them for not doing so.

You are a wise man, my friend.

;-)

Signature

John.
Bottom posting, because it's more logical.

MrBitsy - 02 May 2007 18:00 GMT
My third sentence here suggesting top/bottom posting using the preferred
method of the group you are using.

In that case, I can type my second sentence here - ok?

> I prefer top-posting. I can remember what has been posted before and
> needn't re-read the thread.

I had to scroll down to read what you were replying to, then scroll back up
here to type this first sentence.

> Having said that, I have no problem with top, bottom or split posting
> and certainly wouldn't be so rude as to insist others do what I want
> nor heap derision upon them for not doing so.

Signature

MrBitsy

mattic - 04 May 2007 15:03 GMT
> My third sentence here suggesting top/bottom posting using the preferred
> method of the group you are using.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I had to scroll down to read what you were replying to, then scroll back
> up here to type this first sentence.

Really? You couldn't remember what this thread was about? You've got bigger
problems than this, boy!

>> Having said that, I have no problem with top, bottom or split posting
>> and certainly wouldn't be so rude as to insist others do what I want
>> nor heap derision upon them for not doing so.
Rob. - 04 May 2007 19:17 GMT
You say that about him, but do you think it also applies to newcomers?
Ian Dalziel - 04 May 2007 20:08 GMT
>You say that about him, but do you think it also applies to newcomers?

What does?

Signature

Ian D

Hazel - 17 Apr 2007 17:28 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

OK! Will do. But not just yet.
Signature

He He He <smirk> Tee Hee Hee
On this the 17/04/2007 17:30:09 AD in the final year of Blairs Bullshit.

Alan Holmes - 17 Apr 2007 18:43 GMT
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> OK! Will do. But not just yet.

Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
any idea what the hell you are commenting on.

Alan
Jane Sullivan - 17 Apr 2007 19:32 GMT
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Alan

With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are commenting
on when they bottom post.
Signature

Jane Sullivan

PC Paul - 17 Apr 2007 21:00 GMT
> In message <ZG7Vh.4208$kb4.3329@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes

>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and
>>add comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are
> commenting on when they bottom post.

With *some* people, where they post is fairly irrelevant to anybody else
understanding it...
Alan Holmes - 17 Apr 2007 23:35 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are commenting on
> when they bottom post.

That may be because they do not post comments immediately below the text
they are commenting on.
Hazel - 17 Apr 2007 23:41 GMT
>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> That may be because they do not post comments immediately below the text
> they are commenting on.

Sometimes it's *garbage in----garbage out*.
No matter where it is inserted.

Hazel.
Alan Holmes - 18 Apr 2007 13:04 GMT
>>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>>>>>> for
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Sometimes it's *garbage in----garbage out*.
> No matter where it is inserted.

How very true!

> Hazel.
Hazel - 17 Apr 2007 23:39 GMT
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Alan

That adds to the mystery and increases the excitement of
working out what the original post was all about. It can
give hours of enjoyment.

Hazel.
Alan Holmes - 18 Apr 2007 18:38 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> working out what the original post was all about. It can
> give hours of enjoyment.

Taking this further, how would the OP react to someone givng an answer to a
question (s)he was about to ask!

Alan

> Hazel.
Ed Chilada - 18 Apr 2007 08:49 GMT
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.

Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
NM - 18 Apr 2007 09:10 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?

Microsoft + Lazyness
Tommy - 18 Apr 2007 13:22 GMT
>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>
> Microsoft + Lazyness

You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
(?) way of doing thinks
Adrian - 18 Apr 2007 13:25 GMT
> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
> (?) way of doing thinks

Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.

You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative to
Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an OS.
Brimstone - 18 Apr 2007 13:38 GMT
> Tommy (Thomast@kqwerttie.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an
> OS.

But I never see anything else in PC World or Currys.
Phil Bradshaw - 18 Apr 2007 15:56 GMT
>> Tommy (Thomast@kqwerttie.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> But I never see anything else in PC World or Currys.

But that's PC World and Currys for you. You don't buy stuff there, surely..?
Adrian - 18 Apr 2007 17:42 GMT
>>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale
>>> that doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny
>>> minority of Apple (?) way of doing thinks

>> Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.
>>
>> You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative
>> to Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC
>> without an OS.

> But I never see anything else in PC World or Currys.

No, I never see anything but overpriced sh.t in there, either.
NM - 18 Apr 2007 16:04 GMT
>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative to
> Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an OS.

But it is one of the better alternatives
John Wright - 18 Apr 2007 19:52 GMT
>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
> (?) way of doing thinks

Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed - mind you you won't
see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs loaded with
Linux rather than Micro$oft.

Signature

John Wright

Adrian - 18 Apr 2007 19:57 GMT
> Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed

Dell have been selling PCs with Linux or with no OS for years, particularly
servers. The only difference is that these are targetted at SOHO users.

> There are also dealers who sell PCs
> loaded with Linux rather than Micro$oft.

There's also plenty of suppliers who sell without any OS.
NM - 18 Apr 2007 19:59 GMT
>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs loaded with
> Linux rather than Micro$oft.

I've got an old but perfectly functioning Apple G3 notebook I was
thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on
with it, will it work?
Manny - 18 Apr 2007 20:14 GMT
>>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on
> with it, will it work?

It will do well when it comes to top posting.
NM - 18 Apr 2007 20:26 GMT
I need to get Linux to top post? Why? I can do it now if I want both top
and bottom.

>>>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> It will do well when it comes to top posting.

I need to get Linux to top post? Why? I can do it now if I want both top
and bottom.
John Wright - 19 Apr 2007 20:54 GMT
>>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on
> with it, will it work?

Linux has a reputation of being able to work on otherwise outdated
machines. Granted when this is said people often think of Windows and
its ever increasing need for resources but almost any machine can run Linux

Signature

John Wright

Rose - 18 Apr 2007 11:10 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?

They belong to the Usenet Lodge of Operative Trolls??
Just a wild guess!

Rose.
Tommy - 18 Apr 2007 13:08 GMT
"Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>>> interweb
>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the newest  mass medium is
so full of old fashioned class ridden netiketers.
Top Posting is one thing but I've seen people slagged off for having Tesco
as an ISP and told they should stay away (but not in those 4 letter words )
If car etiquette had not changed we'd have people with a red flag and
drivers tooting  (to let the other driver know!) when they approach a corner
jf - 18 Apr 2007 14:10 GMT
> "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>If car etiquette had not changed we'd have people with a red flag and
>drivers tooting  (to let the other driver know!) when they approach a corner

There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise
written communications would be impossible. The incredibly easy to
follow RFC guidelines on posting to the Usenet have been evolved over
three decades or more to enable people all over the world to communicate
freely on about 100,000 subjects. I don't know how many members of the
Usenet community there are now world wide. Usenet is a remarkable
achievement and warrants our respect, even more so now that it's under
threat.

The machinery for changing those conventions favoured by "old fashioned
class ridden netiketers" as you so sneeringly called them, does exist as
a quick glance through the RFCs will show. There's even a newsgroup in
the Anarchists Liars and Terrorists (alt) hierarchy for those who,
perhaps due to mental deficiencies, are unable to use chronological
posting. It's alt.top-posting.fuckwits. Anyone can join. Try it at home.

Signature

James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

Tommy - 18 Apr 2007 15:45 GMT
maybe If you didn't get angry about such important little things then you
might not have been stroked?

>> "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> chronological posting. It's alt.top-posting.fuckwits. Anyone can
> join. Try it at home.
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 11:23 GMT
>There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise
>written communications would be impossible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other communication medium other than
usenet and email prompts people to quote what other people have just
said before responding. You don't do it in literature, in spoken
conversation, in IRC/IM. Therefore any attempt to apply the rules and
conventions of those mediums is folly.

> The incredibly easy to follow RFC guidelines on posting to the Usenet
> have been evolved over three decades

Last time I looked at the appropriate RFC (I forget the number), there
was very little about top-posting and the RFC itself hadn't changed in
years.

However, you're right to believe that it *ought* to chance since many
factors have changed the face of usenet use. Demographics, bandwidth
and especially always-on connections means that people often use
usenet in a far more immediate and chatty style than when these RFCs
were first crafted. Top posting lends itself to a far chattier style
of post where each post tends to only contain one or two points that
don't directly refer to a point in the original post - hence people
tend to post for reference, not context.

It seems slightly bizarre that the suggestion is that the thousands of
people who prefer top-posting and don't seem to have a problem
understanding it should be told they're doing something wrong because
they're at odds with the dozen or so people who wrote an RFC sometime
in the last millenium.

> or more to enable people all over the world to communicate
>freely on about 100,000 subjects. I don't know how many members of the
>Usenet community there are now world wide. Usenet is a remarkable
>achievement and warrants our respect even more so now that it's under threat.

Threat? What threat?

>The machinery for changing those conventions favoured by "old fashioned
>class ridden netiketers" as you so sneeringly called them, does exist as
>a quick glance through the RFCs will show. There's even a newsgroup in
>the Anarchists Liars and Terrorists (alt) hierarchy for those who,
>perhaps due to mental deficiencies, are unable to use chronological
>posting. It's alt.top-posting.fuckwits. Anyone can join. Try it at home.

Posts *are* made chronologically, it's just that some people don't
seem to be able to understand a threading newsreader. You should
always be wary of believing you're reading someone's post based only
on what someone else has quoted of it. If you're not familar with the
post being quoted, go to the original and read it. Then you'll see
where the respondent has cherry-picked and taken bits out of context.

If you ask me, it's those people that seem unable to handle another
posting style without getting upset or confused that have those
"mental deficiencies". Come on, it's not that hard...
Alan Holmes - 20 Apr 2007 11:49 GMT
>>There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise
>>written communications would be impossible.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> conversation, in IRC/IM. Therefore any attempt to apply the rules and
> conventions of those mediums is folly.

Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an answer
before they speak?
Tommy - 20 Apr 2007 12:57 GMT
NO, But I wouldn't repeat the question

I say I say

NO, But I wouldn't repeat the question

> Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an
> answer before they speak?

PS How do you know the q?
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 13:33 GMT
>>>There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise
>>>written communications would be impossible.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an answer
>before they speak?

"any attempt to apply the rules and conventions of those mediums is
folly"

But if you insist that we go down this path, then I'll also ask you:

Do you quote back everything someone has just said you, verbatim,
before responding?

The answer to both yours and my questions is "of course not". This
only goes to prove that trying to compare usenet quoting with spoken
conversation simply isn't relevant.
NM - 20 Apr 2007 15:15 GMT
>> Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an answer
>> before they speak?

SWMBO does, all the time.

> "any attempt to apply the rules and conventions of those mediums is
> folly"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Do you quote back everything someone has just said you, verbatim,
> before responding?

You mean like Air Traffic Control?
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 15:34 GMT
>> "any attempt to apply the rules and conventions of those mediums is
>> folly"
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>You mean like Air Traffic Control?

Nope, because I said *verbatim* - as quotes in Usenet are. If Air
Traffic Control did so, a conversation might be like this:

Pilot: This is flight 206 from Chicago, requesting permission to land.
ATC: This is flight 206 from Chicago, requesting permission to land.
Permission granted.
Pilot: Er.. sorry, I didn't understand that. Have I got permission to
land or did I overhear someone else?
ATC: Er.. sorry, I didn't understand that. Have I got permission to
land or did I overhear someone else? Yes this is Air Traffic Control.
You have permission to land on runway eleven.
Pilot: I'm a bit confused about who you're talking to here! I'm flight
206, who are you?
ATC: I'm a bit confused about who you're talking to here! I'm flight
206, who are you? This is Air Traffic Control.
Pilot: Whaddya mean you're flight 206?! I'm flight 206!!
ATC: Whaddya mean you're flight 206?! I'm flight 206!! Yes, and we are
Air Traffic Control.
Pilot: Aaaarrrggg... <crash>
NM - 20 Apr 2007 20:56 GMT
>>> "any attempt to apply the rules and conventions of those mediums is
>>> folly"
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Air Traffic Control.
> Pilot: Aaaarrrggg... <crash>

Thus demonstrating you have no clue how ATC is run, still it was good
for a laugh.
Ed Chilada - 21 Apr 2007 13:10 GMT
>> ATC: Whaddya mean you're flight 206?! I'm flight 206!! Yes, and we are
>> Air Traffic Control.
>> Pilot: Aaaarrrggg... <crash>
>>
>Thus demonstrating you have no clue how ATC is run

Well no, I'm don't work there and I'm not a plane-spotter type.
Forgive me if it wasn't accurate, but certainly it was accurate enough
to make my point - that not even ATC staff will repeat what's just
been said to them, verbatim, before responding. If you still think
they do then give me your alternative transcript.

> still it was good for a laugh.

Heh, thanks, it was supposed to be a bit silly..
Clive - 20 Apr 2007 16:03 GMT
> The answer to both yours and my questions is "of course not". This
> only goes to prove that trying to compare usenet quoting with spoken
> conversation simply isn't relevant.

Nope. Sophistry. It really goes to prove two things.
The first is that the average memory span of a newsgroup
poster is lower than that of a goldfish. The second is
that newsgroup tradition of bottom posting has evolved
to successfuly meet the needs of seriously challenged people.
It is to my mind one of the first means of communication
developed, by the user, which meets the needs of the vast
bulk of its clientel and should be applauded for this.
As in real life there is diversity in the subscribers
and this should be encouraged, so there should also be
diversity in posting format. Subscribers should be
allowed to top post, middle post or bottom post which
ever takes their fancy. Charter warriors, netKKKops,
netnannies and other assorted usenet riff raff should
be reminded that they have no clout...and that is official.

I hope this helps the discussion to move forward some what.

Clive
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 19:10 GMT
>> The answer to both yours and my questions is "of course not". This
>> only goes to prove that trying to compare usenet quoting with spoken
>> conversation simply isn't relevant.
>
>Nope. Sophistry.

Huh? Why so? I think it's reasonably clear that trying to compare the
rules of spoken conversation doesn't work when you expect those same
rules to apply in a different medium.

>It really goes to prove two things.
>The first is that the average memory span of a newsgroup
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>and this should be encouraged, so there should also be
>diversity in posting format.

Yes, that's what I said when I talked of the demographics and usage
patterns having changed over the years. Way back when the internet
first 'started', most users were of a similar age, education,
interests etc.. You didn't get teenagers or young kids, grannies,
people from non-technical backgrounds etc.. wanting to just chat about
day-to-day nonsense. These days, the preferences of those users is
just as valid as anyone else's.

> Subscribers should be
>allowed to top post, middle post or bottom post which
>ever takes their fancy. Charter warriors, netKKKops,
>netnannies and other assorted usenet riff raff should
>be reminded that they have no clout...and that is official.

I agree entirely.
Clive. - 22 Apr 2007 22:42 GMT
>Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an answer
>before they speak?
Yes, he's a mind reader:-)
Signature

Clive.

Huge - 18 Apr 2007 22:26 GMT
>  "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the newest  mass medium is
> so full of old fashioned class ridden netiketers.

Usenet "the newest  mass medium"?

Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Tommy - 20 Apr 2007 15:30 GMT
thats what I mean - who cares? Its a bit like biros and quills
Whatever!

> Usenet "the newest  mass medium"?
>
> Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 15:54 GMT
>>  "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?

It does? You very sure about that? Where did you read that?

Of course, even if you were right on that point, it took the internet
to make it a mass medium really.
Ed Chilada - 22 Apr 2007 11:20 GMT
>>>  "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>It does? You very sure about that? Where did you read that?

<silence>

That figures.
Gor Blimey - 23 Apr 2007 23:12 GMT
>>>Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet perhaps?
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:38 GMT
>>>>Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet perhaps?

Which must be right!
Stephen Kingston - 24 Apr 2007 18:11 GMT
>>>>>Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Which must be right!

It *is* right, (although there is a little hair splitting over what is
meant by the Internet).
Huge - 25 Apr 2007 22:50 GMT
>>>>>>Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>>
>>>> That figures.

You're killfiled, you witless c.nt.

Go and do some reading, you useless sack of pus. The uucp man page
would be a good start.

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet perhaps?
>>
>> Which must be right!
>
> It *is* right, (although there is a little hair splitting over what is
> meant by the Internet).

Sigh. I was *there*. I got my first email address on the ARPAnet. And
Usenet already existed and had done for a number of years.

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Steve Firth - 26 Apr 2007 12:23 GMT
> I got my first email address on the ARPAnet. And
> Usenet already existed and had done for a number of years.

Ooh you must know that Alan Holmes, he's been using Outlook Express to
access "the internet" for 35 years.
Huge - 26 Apr 2007 13:17 GMT
>> I got my first email address on the ARPAnet. And
>> Usenet already existed and had done for a number of years.
>
> Ooh you must know that Alan Holmes,

Fortunately not.

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Stephen Kingston - 26 Apr 2007 21:09 GMT
> Sigh. I was *there*. I got my first email address on the ARPAnet. And
> Usenet already existed and had done for a number of years.

You are not the only one. What I am referring to is the fact that Vint
Cerf invented the Internet protocol, which allowed large scale internets
in the 1970s. The first connection between ARPAnet and some other
networks, creating the first internet was demonstrated in 1977 - a couple
of years before USENET.

But, of course, the networks were not called "The Internet" back then, nor
for many years after.

As I said, the hostory of Usenet is right - it just involves some hair
splitting as to when we actually say the Internet began.

Regards,
 Stephen

Follow ups set
John Wright - 25 Apr 2007 23:14 GMT
>>>>>> Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
>>>>> It does? You very sure about that? Where did you read that?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It *is* right, (although there is a little hair splitting over what is
> meant by the Internet).

The answer with Wikipedia is always the same. If you think its wrong,
make yourself an account and change it. Or talk about it with other
wikipedians and find out how you could be wrong as well.

Signature

John Wright

Stephen Kingston - 27 Apr 2007 20:32 GMT
>>>>>>> Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?
>>>>>> It does? You very sure about that? Where did you read that?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> yourself an account and change it. Or talk about it with other wikipedians
> and find out how you could be wrong as well.

Indeed, but as I don't have a problem with it, I'll pass.

Btw, the easiest way to write an essay these days is to write a bad
article on Wikipedia, and wait a week.

Regards,
 Stephen
Gor Blimey - 24 Apr 2007 23:56 GMT
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet perhaps?
>
> Which must be right!

It's just one of a number of references that anyone who could be bothered
could find with a simple Google. Look, here's another

Are you contesting it, or just being a twat for the sake of it?
Mark Goodge - 22 Apr 2007 13:08 GMT
>>>  "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>It does? You very sure about that? Where did you read that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet is a pretty accurate account.

>Of course, even if you were right on that point, it took the internet
>to make it a mass medium really.

That depends what you mean by "mass".

Mark
Signature

Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"

Alan Holmes - 22 Apr 2007 17:25 GMT
>>>>  "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> That depends what you mean by "mass".

I think he made a typo, he really meant 'mess'!
Ed Chilada - 24 Apr 2007 00:18 GMT
>>>>  "Hazel" <mea@nospam.onetest.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet is a pretty accurate account.

Heh, "wikipedia" and "accurate", aren't often used in the same
sentence. According to that article:

"It was established in 1980".

Which is *well* after the origins of the internet. Sticking with
Wikipedia article, their article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet

says:

"the first node went live at UCLA on October 29, 1969 on what would be
called the ARPANET, one of the "eve" networks of today's Internet.
Following on from this, the British Post Office, Western Union
International and Tymnet collaborated to create the first
international packet switched network, referred to as the
International Packet Switched Service (IPSS), in 1978"

Which is the sort of history I'm referring to.

However, I also see that article also says:

"The first TCP/IP-wide area network was operational by January 1,
1983, when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF)
constructed a university network backbone that would later become the
NSFNet. (This date is held by some to be technically that of the birth
of the Internet.)"

So if that's where Huge is getting his dates from, then fair enough -
although I'd disagree that the incident is the birth of the internet -
it's another step, albeit quite major, along the way - with crucial
steps having preceeded it.

>>Of course, even if you were right on that point, it took the internet
>>to make it a mass medium really.
>
>That depends what you mean by "mass".

The tens or hundreds of thousands of people that have used usenet for
a couple of decades or so.
Steve Firth - 26 Apr 2007 12:23 GMT
> "The first TCP/IP-wide area network was operational by January 1,
> 1983, when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So if that's where Huge is getting his dates from, then fair enough -
> although I'd disagree that the incident is the birth of the internet -

And IP stood for what, dumbass?
Clive. - 26 Apr 2007 15:53 GMT
>And IP stood for what, dumbass?
Surely that would be DB or DA?
Signature

Clive.

Ed Chilada - 27 Apr 2007 12:14 GMT
>> "The first TCP/IP-wide area network was operational by January 1,
>> 1983, when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>And IP stood for what, dumbass?

Internet Protocol - and it still does. So what's your point? Before
you get back to me on that, you probably should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP

"Note that today's TCP/IP networking represents a synthesis of two
developments that began in the 1970's, namely LAN's (Local Area
Networks) and the Internet".

"The Internet protocol suite came from work done by DARPA in the early
1970s"

"In 1975, a two-network TCP/IP communications test was performed
between Stanford and University College London (UCL).

"In November, 1977, a three-network TCP/IP test was conducted between
the U.S., UK, and Norway"

That's certainly before 1980, wouldn't you say?
Richard Polhill - 27 Apr 2007 12:53 GMT
>> "The first TCP/IP-wide area network was operational by January 1,
>> 1983, when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF)
>> constructed a university network backbone that would later become the
>> NSFNet. (This date is held by some to be technically that of the birth
>> of the Internet.)"

>> So if that's where Huge is getting his dates from, then fair enough -
>> although I'd disagree that the incident is the birth of the internet -

> And IP stood for what, dumbass?

Lad, lads, lads.

You're confusing "internet" - abbreviation for interconnected network, the
linking together of different networks. From whence came the internetwork
addressing protocol IP, invented early '70s.

And "The Internet" (note caps) - the largest global implementation of an
internet, probably created around 1983.

Entry copied from Oxford English Dictionary Online:-

Copyright © Oxford University Press 2007
Internet, n.
    DRAFT ENTRY Dec. 2002
Computing.

Brit. /{sm}{shti}nt{schwa}n{ope}t/, U.S. /{sm}{shti}n(t){schwa}r{smm}n{ope}t/
 Also with lower-case initial. [Shortened < INTERNETWORK n., perh. influenced
by similar words in -net (as Catenet (1972), Satnet (1973), Telenet (1973),
etc.) after ARPAnet (a wide area network developed by the Advanced Research
Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense, attested from 1971). In
subsequent use denoting the global network, prob. greatly reinforced by use in
the compound Internet Protocol; cf.:
  1996 K. HAFNER & M. LYON Where Wizards stay up Late (1998) viii. 244
Because this growing conglomeration of networks [in the mid 1980s] was able to
communicate using the TCP/IP protocols, the collection of networks gradually
came to be called the ‘Internet’, borrowing the first word of ‘Internet
Protocol’.]

    I. Simple uses.

    1. Originally (in form internet): a computer network consisting of or
connecting a number of smaller networks, such as two or more local area
networks connected by a shared communications protocol; spec. such a network
(called ARPAnet) operated by the U.S. Defense Department. In later use (usu.
the Internet): the global computer network (which evolved out of ARPAnet)
providing a variety of information and communication facilities to its users,
and consisting of a loose confederation of interconnected networks which use
standardized communication protocols; (also) the information available on this
network.
1974 V. G. CERF et al. Request for Comments (Network Working Group)
(Electronic text) No. 675. 1 (title) Specification of internet transmission
control program. 1976 V. G. CERF ARPA Internetwork Protocols Project Status
Rep. ii. 36 We have made very little progress in our attempts to specify
experiments using internet gateways. 1981 Electronics (Nexis) 16 June 171 Two
internet servers connect five local networks for different departments of a
company. 1986 Network World (Nexis) 15 Sept. 21 The electronic mail net runs
over Internet, an international network of networks operated by the Department
of Defense. 1990 L. WALL & R. L. SCHWARTZ Programming Perl vi. 260 Many of the
services provided by servers running on the Internet are simply database
engines. 1991 Profession 91 42/2 Most machines on the Internet run the UNIX
operating system and employ the sophisticated TCP/IP protocol, which supports
remote log-ins and anonymous file-transfer protocols (FTPs). 1996 K. HAFNER &
M. LYON Where Wizards stay up Late (1998) viii. 244 Roughly speaking, an
‘internet’ is private and the ‘Internet’ is public. The distinction didn't
really matter until the mid-1980s when route vendors began to sell equipment
to construct private internets. But the distinction quickly blurred as the
private internets built gateways to the public Internet. 1997 Times 5 Mar.
(Interface section) 7/1 Most tourist services on the Internet can only provide
text and picture data on places of interest. 2000 Dominion (Wellington)
(Electronic ed.) 9 Feb., His name has been published in American newspapers
with a total circulation of 2.5 million and can be easily found on the Internet.

    II. Compounds.

    2. Internet access provider, a commercial company that provides
businesses and individuals with (usually dial-up) access to the Internet; cf.
Internet service provider. Internet addict, a person who uses the Internet
compulsively, excessively, or very frequently. Internet addiction, very
frequent, continual, or excessive use of the Internet; a compulsion to use the
Internet. Internet addiction disorder orig. and chiefly humorous, a supposed
psychological disorder characterized by dependence on, or overuse of, the
Internet, esp. as a means of avoiding problems in other spheres of life.
Internet Protocol, a standard that specifies the format and addressing scheme
of packets of data sent over the Internet or other network; abbreviated IP.
Internet provider = Internet service provider. Internet Relay Chat, a protocol
allowing communication over the Internet between multiple users in real time;
(also) the notional area of the Internet where such communication takes place.
Internet service provider, an organization that provides access to the
Internet, usually on a commercial basis, either via a modem or through a
permanent line, and usually also offers services relating to web sites,
intranets, etc. (abbreviated ISP); cf. Internet access provider, with which
this term is often used interchangeably.
1992 Communications Week (Nexis) 24 Feb. 3 The hearings are in response to
contentions from commercial *Internet access providers such as Performance
Systems International Inc., Reston, Va., that the NSF gave Advanced Network &
Services Inc., Elmsford, N.Y., preferential treatment in awarding it
management and upgrading of the NSFnet backbone. 1996 Daily Tel. 15 Mar. 34/5
To help the bewildered novice, some Internet access providers give a
‘launcher’, which lets users specify what they want to do, and runs the
appropriate piece of software. 1992 Communications Week 30 Nov. 39/4 As an
*Internet ‘addict’ myself, I love to see real-life, everyday benefits to what
is often viewed as another techie tool. 2001 Maine Sunday Telegram (Electronic
ed.) 9 Sept., Experts say more couch potatoes, fast-food diners and Internet
addicts are becoming obese. 1994 Toronto Star 6 Mar. B4/4 Broadhead learned
the hard way how expensive an *Internet addiction can be. 1999 Khaleej Times
(Dubai, United Arab Emirates) 7 Nov. (Features Plus) p. viii/1 Internet
addiction is an all-encompassing phrase for a wide variety of sub-types of
behaviour: they include cyberlibido addiction.., cyber-relationship
addiction.., and net compulsions. 1995 I. GOLDBERG Internet Addiction Support
Group in sci.med (Usenet newsgroup) 16 Mar., *Internet Addiction Disorder
(IAD)-Diagnostic Criteria. A maladaptive pattern of Internet use, leading to
clinically significant impairment or distress as manifested by three (or more)
of the following..[etc.]. 2001 Atlanta Constit. (Electronic ed.) 24 Aug.,
There are warning signs you should know in case you or a loved one are
succumbing to Internet Addiction Disorder, also known as compulsive Internet
use. 1977 Computer Networks 1 183/2 A desired end-end service may be
implemented two ways..end-end controls vs. hop-by-hop controls... Hop-by-Hop
sacrifices some flexibility but partially avoids the need for a common
*internet protocol. 1998 R. DARNELL et al. HTML 4 Unleashed III. xii. 184 The
server is referred to as the resource's ‘network host’ and can be addressed by
either domain name or numerical IP (Internet Protocol) address. 1991 Business
Wire (Nexis) 27 Mar., The CIX agreement can be extended to other commercial
*Internet providers. 1991 Network World (Nexis) 2 Dec. 4 The Boston-based
Federation of American Research Networks, the association of the regional
Internet providers. 2000 Feng Shui for Mod. Living May 12/2 One of America's
most popular internet providers disported [sic] a plethora of special feng
shui links and sites. 1990 J. REYNOLDS & J. POSTEL Request for Comments
(Network Working Group) (Electronic text) No. 1060 12 IRC, *Internet Relay
Chat Protocol. 1991 Byte (Nexis) July 184 A more recent innovation is Internet
Relay Chat, which allows two people on the Internet to communicate in real
time. 1996 Internet World June 104/1, I simply wanted to play Dungeons and
Dragons..over the Internet. I figured that Internet Relay Chat..already was
booming with adventures. 1991 LAN Times (Nexis) 19 Aug. 56 There exist several
commercial *Internet service providers: Alternet, Cerfnet, and PSI Net. 1995
Philadelphia Inquirer 7 Aug. G5/4 The area's two largest Internet service
providers{em}voiceNet and Net Access{em}have Web sites with plenty of local
content, including some pretty cool home pages set up by individuals. 1999
Independent 27 Dec. II. 8/2 Check the dial-up number given to you by your
Internet service provider (ISP) and make sure that's what you entered when you
set up your Dial-Up Connection.
Alan Holmes - 18 Apr 2007 18:39 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?

Fortunately it is not very many, at least in the newsgruops I subscribe to,
so perhaps I'm reading the newsgroups which attract the more intelligent
subscribers!

Alan
Mike O'Sullivan - 19 Apr 2007 07:25 GMT
>  
> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
> comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
> any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>
> Unless of course they happened to have read the previous post!
Tommy - 19 Apr 2007 12:36 GMT
my cursor went to the top  of the post

>> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly
>> and add comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top
>> post, no one has any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>
>> Unless of course they happened to have read the previous post!
Brimstone - 19 Apr 2007 12:48 GMT
> my cursor went to the top  of the post

What a shame you'll never do likewise in the class.
Rob. - 19 Apr 2007 13:05 GMT
> my cursor went to the top  of the post

That'll be a pre-cursor ;-)
Clive. - 19 Apr 2007 14:38 GMT
>my cursor went to the top  of the post
And if I tell you to jump of a cliff?
Signature

Clive.

Mike O'Sullivan - 19 Apr 2007 18:08 GMT
> my cursor went to the top  of the post

That makes it a surtitle.
Alan Holmes - 19 Apr 2007 18:27 GMT
>> my cursor went to the top  of the post

Which they all do, but the solution is very, very simple, you just press the
down button and, surprise, suprise, the cursor moves down the page.

Or is that too difficult for you to follow?
Tommy - 22 Apr 2007 11:04 GMT
>>> my cursor went to the top  of the post
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Or is that too difficult for you to follow?

As difficult  as it is to speak with oiks and vermin like yourself :-)
Rupert - 22 Apr 2007 12:41 GMT
I like a god top posting. It really gets the juices going.
Not mine but those of bottom posting bigots.
I just love it.
Don't you?

>>>> my cursor went to the top  of the post
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> As difficult  as it is to speak with oiks and vermin like yourself :-)

Signature

To keep up to date read:

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/

Read by the shakers and movers of Europe.

NM - 22 Apr 2007 12:48 GMT
> I like a god top posting. It really gets the juices going.
> Not mine but those of bottom posting bigots.
> I just love it.
> Don't you?

There are no Gods who top post in this newsgroup, there are some who
regard themselves as deity but sadly they are delusional.

Those mortals who top post and think it's a better way are also delusional.
Manny - 22 Apr 2007 12:52 GMT
It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.

>> I like a god top posting. It really gets the juices going.
>> Not mine but those of bottom posting bigots.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Those mortals who top post and think it's a better way are also delusional.

Signature

To keep up to date read:

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/

Read by the shakers and movers of Europe.

NM - 22 Apr 2007 12:59 GMT
> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.

Oh really, you mean you elicited a response? Isn't that what posting is
all about? If you didn't want a reply why post in the first place?

Both times, this and the previous time, I have had to edit your  post in
order for the response to make sense. If you think that's better  then
you have your head up your arse.

But judging by your last reply it's an odds on certainty anyway.
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) - 22 Apr 2007 13:07 GMT
> I rest my case.

I shouldn't rest it there mate, it'll end up in the lost property office
where it will join the other lost arguments.
Signature

Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
   Nikon D2X / D2Hs / D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700
   My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
   "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

Alan Holmes - 22 Apr 2007 17:23 GMT
> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.

What are you talking about?
NM - 22 Apr 2007 17:45 GMT
>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>
> What are you talking about?

Read the thread and you'll find out?
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 16:29 GMT
>>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>>
>> What are you talking about?
> Read the thread and you'll find out?

What thread?
NM - 23 Apr 2007 16:41 GMT
This one

>>>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>>>
>>> What are you talking about?
>> Read the thread and you'll find out?
>
> What thread?
'Mike' - 23 Apr 2007 16:52 GMT
Are you sure that it is this one?

Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

> This one
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> What thread?
NM - 23 Apr 2007 17:03 GMT
> Are you sure that it is this one?

No, what was up now is now down, it's like living in a lift.
ian henden - 23 Apr 2007 18:37 GMT
> Are you sure that it is this one?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>>
>>> What thread?

No - that one ---->
NM - 23 Apr 2007 18:41 GMT
>> Are you sure that it is this one?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>>>
> No - that one ---->

Stop it quick, it's getting away.
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:34 GMT
>>> Are you sure that it is this one?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> No - that one ---->
> Stop it quick, it's getting away.

Damn, too late!
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:33 GMT
>> Are you sure that it is this one?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
> No - that one ---->

Why didn't someone say?
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:34 GMT
> This one
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> What thread?

Which one is that?
cupra - 22 Apr 2007 18:00 GMT
>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>
> What are you talking about?

The evidence is in the thread!!
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 16:29 GMT
>>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> The evidence is in the thread!!

What thread?
NM - 23 Apr 2007 16:43 GMT
This thread?

One in the middle?

>>>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>>>
>>> What are you talking about?
>> The evidence is in the thread!!
>
> What thread?

Or that one.
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:34 GMT
> This thread?
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
> Or that one.

Which one is that?
'Mike' - 23 Apr 2007 16:49 GMT
> What thread?

The thread about top posting where people have really got their knickers in
a twist and feel that the top posting issue is life or death :-((((

For his sake, get a life everybody.

Mike

Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

Barry - 23 Apr 2007 16:54 GMT
>> What thread?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Mike

......for some it is. It's about democracy and freedom!
'Mike' - 23 Apr 2007 17:14 GMT
Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

>>> What thread?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> ......for some it is. It's about democracy and freedom!

for some it's about being paranoid :-(((

Mike

My sig is at the top
Baz - 23 Apr 2007 18:40 GMT
You can take ma' sig file...

>> The thread about top posting where people have really got their knickers
>> in
>> a twist and feel that the top posting issue is life or death :-((((

> ......for some it is. It's about democracy and freedom!

but yu canna take ma' FREEEDOOMM!!!!!

..to post in stupid places...

Baz
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:37 GMT
> You can take ma' sig file...
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> but yu canna take ma' FREEEDOOMM!!!!!

If you live in England, you already have lsot it!

> ..to post in stupid places...
>
> Baz
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:35 GMT
>>> What thread?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> ......for some it is. It's about democracy and freedom!

Which country will we find that in?
Steve - 22 Apr 2007 17:44 GMT
> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.

Any females here who fancy getting my juices going in exchange for same?

;-)
Brimstone - 22 Apr 2007 17:56 GMT
>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>
> Any females here who fancy getting my juices going in exchange for same?

There'll be none desperate enough.
NM - 22 Apr 2007 18:05 GMT
>>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>>
>> Any females here who fancy getting my juices going in exchange for same?
>
> There'll be none desperate enough.

I've got a female turtle who will probably oblige if you are prepared to
swim around on her back for a few months, but I want rights to the porn
video.
Steve - 22 Apr 2007 18:13 GMT
>>>> It got your juices going!!! I rest my case.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> swim around on her back for a few months, but I want rights to the porn
> video.

As long as I don't have to go up the beach and back with her...

That sand can itch when it gets in your creases...
mattic - 01 May 2007 15:35 GMT
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
> any idea what the hell you are commenting on.

It's my sincere belief that anybody so thrown by a top-post to be rendered
without any idea what the hell is being commented upon, has the intellectual
capacity of a boiled potato.
Huge - 01 May 2007 17:58 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> without any idea what the hell is being commented upon, has the intellectual
> capacity of a boiled potato.

Then you're a drooling fucktard.

You trying following a thread once it's been multiply commented on those
who think that Bill Gates' cock tastes great.

Signature

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
           or that problem will never be solved by science.
           [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

mattic - 04 May 2007 15:03 GMT
Matron!

>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>>>>> for
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> You trying following a thread once it's been multiply commented on those
> who think that Bill Gates' cock tastes great.
MrBitsy - 02 May 2007 18:00 GMT
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much
>>>> easier for the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> rendered without any idea what the hell is being commented upon, has
> the intellectual capacity of a boiled potato.

Mash anyone?
Signature

MrBitsy

mattic - 04 May 2007 15:03 GMT
>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much
>>>>> easier for the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Mash anyone?

If we are to evolve as a race, I think it's essential!
John Wright - 17 Apr 2007 21:04 GMT
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Sorry, 0.01% Linux user here.

Signature

John Wright

Roadhog - 19 Apr 2007 17:51 GMT
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 biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

Signature

Roadhog

Alan Holmes - 19 Apr 2007 18:25 GMT
> 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 biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

Very well put!

Alan
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 11:13 GMT
>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 biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

No it doesn't. It simply uses quoting for reference, not context. Top
posting it *not* about posting in the fashion you present and it
speaks volumes that you have to present a fictional scenario to try
and make your point.
Alan Holmes - 20 Apr 2007 11:46 GMT
>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> speaks volumes that you have to present a fictional scenario to try
> and make your point.

Yes it does!

It shows quite clearly the problmes associated with idiotic top posting,
more especialy if the top poster is following up an item which may be at the
end of a long post.
Ed Chilada - 20 Apr 2007 13:42 GMT
>>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>It shows quite clearly the problmes associated with idiotic top posting

No it doesn't. It shows quite clearly the problems associated with
structuring a single post in reverse line order - when the previous
lines have never been posted elsewhere. It also only works if the
lines *directly* refer to each other, which a top posted post usually
does not. Note how he's specifically presenting a question and answer
scenario. I would agree that top-posting doesn't work too well for
question-answer posts that need a reference quote (ie the question)
for the answer to make sense. But then not all posts are QA and
top-posts generally are not.

>more especialy if the top poster is following up an item which may be at the
>end of a long post.

Perhaps that's simply an issue with quote trimming. It's similarly a
pain in the arse to scroll through page after page of quote to find a
single line comment at the bottom.
Tommy - 20 Apr 2007 15:32 GMT
If someone started a thread about how to cure cancer -

>>>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
>>>> text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> pain in the arse to scroll through page after page of quote to find a
> single line comment at the bottom.

Some sad little anally retentive nerd would complain about  top postings and
SHOUTing - ru rite?
Alan Holmes - 20 Apr 2007 23:12 GMT
>>>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> pain in the arse to scroll through page after page of quote to find a
> single line comment at the bottom.

Yes, but it's much more sensible than having to read through the WHOLE post
to find what the single line at the top is referring to!
mattic - 07 May 2007 14:04 GMT
>>>>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Yes, but it's much more sensible than having to read through the WHOLE
> post to find what the single line at the top is referring to!

What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
But, you do what you like. Be sure to extend me the same courtesy.
NM - 07 May 2007 14:41 GMT
> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
> you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
> But, you do what you like. Be sure to extend me the same courtesy.

I bottom post because it's the convention and is regarded as manners,
you want to play a different game then don't be surprised if your
contributions are ignored.
mattic - 07 May 2007 15:21 GMT
>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
>> you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
>> But, you do what you like. Be sure to extend me the same courtesy.
> I bottom post because it's the convention and is regarded as manners, you
> want to play a different game then don't be surprised if your
> contributions are ignored.

I don't mind being ignored, it's very much the loss of those prepared to
irrationally and illogically ignore a comment simply because it is
top-posted, rather than any particular bore for me.
It's the ones trying to force their opinions on everyone else that are
making all the fuss. I'm content to post how I like and allow others to do
the same.

Any thing else is simply small-man-syndrome converted into it's usenet form.
NM - 07 May 2007 16:00 GMT
>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
>>> you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> irrationally and illogically ignore a comment simply because it is
> top-posted, rather than any particular bore for me.

But it isn't irrational or illogical, the rationality is that's the
ettiquette and it's logical everyone in the same game plays by the same
rules, you want to swim against the tide, your choice, all I'm pointing
out it could lead to your overall loss.

> It's the ones trying to force their opinions on everyone else that are
> making all the fuss. I'm content to post how I like and allow others to do
> the same.

When you play football or snooker or any other game do you change the
rules everyone else is using because you feel like it, just because you
have the power to do so?

> Any thing else is simply small-man-syndrome converted into it's usenet form.

Usually interaction between humans within previously set parameters is
called co-operation.
mattic - 07 May 2007 17:50 GMT
>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
>>>> you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> rules, you want to swim against the tide, your choice, all I'm pointing
> out it could lead to your overall loss.

You miss the point. It is irrational and illogical to dismiss a comment
based simply on its position on the page.

>> It's the ones trying to force their opinions on everyone else that are
>> making all the fuss. I'm content to post how I like and allow others to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> rules everyone else is using because you feel like it, just because you
> have the power to do so?

This isn't football or snooker, there are no rules. There may be traditions,
but when traditions are overtaken, one usually finds a few old codgers
refusing to leave their house and cursing as the tsunami bears down upon
them.
My stance is tolerance. I do not require you to post in a certain way.

>> Any thing else is simply small-man-syndrome converted into it's usenet
>> form.
>
> Usually interaction between humans within previously set parameters is
> called co-operation.

This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The top-posters
say, "You WILL do it my way!"
I prefer top-posting but will not force my view on anyone and will post
appropriately depending on how the thread is progressing. Sometimes top,
sometimes bottom, sometimes interlaced. You do it howsoever you desire.
NM - 07 May 2007 20:24 GMT
>>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
>>>>> you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> appropriately depending on how the thread is progressing. Sometimes top,
> sometimes bottom, sometimes interlaced. You do it howsoever you desire.

Well I hope it works for you, AFAIC I've already skipped several of your
posts in another thread and shall continue to do so, as I suspect will
many others.
mattic - 07 May 2007 23:35 GMT
>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The top-posters
>> say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> posts in another thread and shall continue to do so, as I suspect will
> many others.

Like I said, your loss. It is you who are lesser educated for it.
NM - 08 May 2007 08:05 GMT
>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The top-posters
>>> say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Like I said, your loss. It is you who are lesser educated for it.

The purpose is to communicate, you choose to communicate differently
(you may as well speak a different language whilst in the UK it would be
just as logical).

Somehow I doubt if missing any pearls of your imparted wisdom will make
a significant hole in my education, if you need to be out of step then
it's likely your views are equally eccentric.
mattic - 08 May 2007 12:04 GMT
>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> may as well speak a different language whilst in the UK it would be just
> as logical).

No, it is not. You really must snap out of this. You analogy is crap.

> Somehow I doubt if missing any pearls of your imparted wisdom will make a
> significant hole in my education

Not significant, no, I'm sure you won't die from it.

> if you need to be out of step then it's likely your views are equally
> eccentric.

I have no need to be out of step at all. I'm not advocating top posting. I
merely state that I prefer it. But I have no problems with how anyone posts.
It's you
that has the problem and it's leading you to illogical intransigence.
NM - 08 May 2007 12:22 GMT
>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> It's you
> that has the problem and it's leading you to illogical intransigence.

Of course how silly of me not to realise, your choice not to follow
convention is MY fault?
mattic - 08 May 2007 13:25 GMT
>>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> Of course how silly of me not to realise, your choice not to follow
> convention is MY fault?

Gosh, you really are bad at following a logical argument, aren't you?!

It's not your fault I won't follow. But it is very much your fault that you
continue to whine (futilely) about it. You have a thought stuck in your mind
and then you try to invent (il)logic to justify it. It's just plain silly.

That's you, Firth and jf, all making twats of yourselves by stating that the
position on a page renders comments irrelevant. Tell me, if I cut and paste
your comments at the top of the page, will they suddenly become worthless?
That's what your saying. Silly.
mattic - 08 May 2007 13:27 GMT
> That's what your saying.

f.ck! I hate that! "you're" Damn interweb!
NM - 08 May 2007 13:28 GMT
>>>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> your comments at the top of the page, will they suddenly become worthless?
> That's what your saying. Silly.

Bye Bye, Life's too short for your crap, your bed, you lie in it.
mattic - 08 May 2007 13:45 GMT
>>>>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>> worthless? That's what your saying. Silly.
> Bye Bye, Life's too short for your crap, your bed, you lie in it.

My crap? My bed? I have neither. I'm advocating tolerance and letting people
please themselves without having to be subject to the abuse and derision of
people like you. YOU'RE the one bleating like a bitch because people won't
do it your way. You stop dictating and forcing your views on others and this
will all go away. It's within your power. The fact that you cannot let it go
and have to invent silly arguments to support yourself is testament to the
madness that engulfs you.

You realise that killfiling is the ultimate capitulation, don't you? It's
the cyber equivilent of running away with your hands over your ears yelling,
"Lalalalala!"
Brimstone - 08 May 2007 13:59 GMT
> My crap? My bed? I have neither. I'm advocating tolerance and letting
> people please themselves without having to be subject to the abuse and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the cyber equivilent of running away with your hands over your ears
> yelling, "Lalalalala!"

Since the whole point of writing something is for other people to read,
understand and possibly respond to, one must write in a manner and style
that the intended audience can understand. Sadly in these self obsessed time
it's the "I'll do it my way" attitude of the writer which prevails, hence
communication suffers.
mattic - 09 May 2007 14:37 GMT
>> My crap? My bed? I have neither. I'm advocating tolerance and letting
>> people please themselves without having to be subject to the abuse and
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> time it's the "I'll do it my way" attitude of the writer which prevails,
> hence communication suffers.

I agree entirely. I'm often saying the same thing in other forums. I do not
believe, however, that the position on the page changes the meaning of any
comments made.
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) - 09 May 2007 15:48 GMT
mattic, you are a complete moron who doesn't deserve the simple right to
draw breath

> I agree entirely. I'm often saying the same thing in other forums.
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) - 09 May 2007 16:17 GMT
> mattic, you are a complete moron who doesn't deserve the simple right to
> draw breath
>
>> I agree entirely. I'm often saying the same thing in other forums.

I'm so glad we are in agreement on this subject.
Signature

Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
   Nikon D2X / D2Hs / D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700
   My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
   "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

mattic - 10 May 2007 08:55 GMT
You think anyone, but you, fell for that, Taff?

>> mattic, you are a complete moron who doesn't deserve the simple right to
>> draw breath
>>
>>> I agree entirely. I'm often saying the same thing in other forums.
>
> I'm so glad we are in agreement on this subject.
mattic - 09 May 2007 16:18 GMT
Get a grip, Davey-boy.

> mattic, you are a complete moron who doesn't deserve the simple right to
> draw breath
>
>> I agree entirely. I'm often saying the same thing in other forums.
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) - 09 May 2007 16:52 GMT
> Get a grip, Davey-boy.

Seems I've out-gripped you mattic-laddy   ;o)
Signature

Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
   Nikon D2X / D2Hs / D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700
   My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
   "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

mattic - 10 May 2007 08:55 GMT
No, not really. Far too clumsy.

>> Get a grip, Davey-boy.
>
> Seems I've out-gripped you mattic-laddy   ;o)
NM - 08 May 2007 14:00 GMT
>>>>>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> and have to invent silly arguments to support yourself is testament to the
> madness that engulfs you.

No where in this thread have I given you any abuse or demanded you do
anything other than your way, all I have done is point out the pitfalls
of your decision.

> You realise that killfiling is the ultimate capitulation, don't you? It's
> the cyber equivilent of running away with your hands over your ears yelling,
> "Lalalalala!"

But I'm not killfiling you, I will read your posts if they are presented
in the correct form, I'm just not prepared to argue this any longer,
it's futile. You post the way you choose, I'll read posts complying with
the ettiquette of this group, end of story.
mattic - 09 May 2007 14:37 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>>>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> No where in this thread have I given you any abuse or demanded you do
> anything other than your way

Not in as many words, no. But the subtext has been clearly that.

> all I have done is point out the pitfalls of your decision.

No, you're made irrational and illogical statements that crumble under even
the most cursory scrutiny.

>> You realise that killfiling is the ultimate capitulation, don't you? It's
>> the cyber equivilent of running away with your hands over your ears
>> yelling, "Lalalalala!"
> But I'm not killfiling you, I will read your posts if they are presented
> in the correct form

Correct for, according to you. Let's not leave that out.

> I'm just not prepared to argue this any longer, it's futile.

When your argument has no basis other than tradition and your view of
others' comments are dependent upon their position on the page, yeah, I'd
say that's a fair assessment.

> You post the way you choose, I'll read posts complying with the ettiquette
> of this group, end of story.

Your loss.

Want to go around again? Scream if you want to go faster.
NM - 09 May 2007 17:15 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not co-operation or interaction, it is dictation. The
>>>>>>>>>>> top-posters say, "You WILL do it my way!"
[quoted text clipped - 83 lines]
>
> Want to go around again? Scream if you want to go faster.

Bye
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) - 09 May 2007 18:01 GMT
> Bye

Congratulations.  You are the undisputed winner of the single word response
to a completely untrimmed 7kb multi-post.  Wear it with pride, you are
'fuckwit of the month'.
Signature

Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
   Nikon D2X / D2Hs / D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700
   My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
   "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

mattic - 10 May 2007 08:55 GMT
>> Bye
>
> Congratulations.  You are the undisputed winner of the single word
> response to a completely untrimmed 7kb multi-post.  Wear it with pride,
> you are 'fuckwit of the month'.

I was going to edit my reply to include this info, but you put it very well,
Dave.

Now, it he had've top-posted, it would have been so much easier to read!
NM - 11 May 2007 13:55 GMT
>> Bye
>
> Congratulations.  You are the undisputed winner of the single word
> response to a completely untrimmed 7kb multi-post.  Wear it with pride,
> you are 'fuckwit of the month'.

Thank you, coming from a fool it's the ultimate accolade (meanwhile back
to the drying paint).
mattic - 10 May 2007 08:55 GMT
> Bye

Didn't you do this before and still come back for more? Are you really going
this time?
Jeff York - 08 May 2007 14:24 GMT
>>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through everything
>>>>> you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>You miss the point. It is irrational and illogical to dismiss a comment
>based simply on its position on the page.

It's not so much "dismiss the comment" as "dismiss the *commenter*"...
It's experience-based pragmatism... In general, those who ignore the
accepted etiquette in a particular newsgroup, and continue so to do
after being reminded of the fact, for some reason rarely say anything
worth reading. As to whether it's a generational or intelligence
problem I don't know. But it's the same in all the groups that I read.
mattic - 09 May 2007 14:37 GMT
>>>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through
>>>>>> everything
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> It's not so much "dismiss the comment" as "dismiss the *commenter*"...

Which amounts to the same thing AND you add "Ad Hominem" to the mix, another
logical fallacy.

> It's experience-based pragmatism... In general, those who ignore the
> accepted etiquette in a particular newsgroup

It is not so in here. In here it is anything but ordered. Not that that
bothers me overly. Also, we must allow that change is constant.

> and continue so to do
> after being reminded of the fact, for some reason rarely say anything
> worth reading.

That is a sweeping generalisation. I'm sure that that is not true.
Especially as the people who top-post do not see themselves as anarchists,
"doing it deliberately", they simply have a preferance. I see the merits of
both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.

> As to whether it's a generational or intelligence
> problem I don't know. But it's the same in all the groups that I read.

Stop chastising and the debate will end. Apart from "tradition" and the
sad-acts I mentioned earlier, doing it for the powertrip, there's no
compelling reason for either to be a clear winner. In practical terms, given
the oft declared (and sometimes obvious) superior brain-power of the
bottom-posting crowd, is it really that hard to decipher the odd top-post?
I'm quite clever enough to figure it out, and if I can't be bothered, then
that's MY decision and I shouldn't whine at others for not doing it exactly
how it suits ME.
Jeff York - 09 May 2007 15:12 GMT
>>>>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through
>>>>>>> everything
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>Which amounts to the same thing AND you add "Ad Hominem" to the mix, another
>logical fallacy.

We aren't discussing logic... We're discussing communication - or the
lack thereof.

>> It's experience-based pragmatism... In general, those who ignore the
>> accepted etiquette in a particular newsgroup
>
>It is not so in here. In here it is anything but ordered.

Depends where "in here" is... This thread appears to be cross-posted
to about seven different groups. I'm in uk.rec.driving, where you? :-)

>... Not that that
>bothers me overly. Also, we must allow that change is constant.

Change for change sake? Not exactly a strong point.

>> and continue so to do
>> after being reminded of the fact, for some reason rarely say anything
>> worth reading.
>
>That is a sweeping generalisation.

That's true... But, in my experience, quite valid despite its
generality.

>Especially as the people who top-post do not see themselves as anarchists,
>"doing it deliberately", they simply have a preferance.

I can't see any reasons other than deliberate contrarianism or basic
idleness to continue top-posting in a bottom-posting group.

>... I see the merits of
>both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.

I can't... "Old-fashoned" "interleaved/bottom" posting seems to do a
reasonable job of emulating a conversation and, bearing in mind the
sometimes wayward propogation of usenet messages, helps to keep the
discussion in context.

I suppose that a pure top-posted thread could do the same thing, but
you'd need to read it backwards to attempt to make any sense of it.
Once top and bottom posting gets intermingled any sense seems to
evaporate.

>> As to whether it's a generational or intelligence
>> problem I don't know. But it's the same in all the groups that I read.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>that's MY decision and I shouldn't whine at others for not doing it exactly
>how it suits ME.

But you're not a "standard" top-poster... :-)  You've adapted your
style to fit in with those arguing with you.

Well done!  Have a gold star.  :-)
mattic - 09 May 2007 16:18 GMT
>>>>>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through
>>>>>>>> everything
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> We aren't discussing logic... We're discussing communication - or the
> lack thereof.

And the arguments therein have thrown up one idiotic and one very-well-known
logical fallacy. One cannot have a decent discussion without logic, or the
pointing-out of illogic, playing a part.

>>> It's experience-based pragmatism... In general, those who ignore the
>>> accepted etiquette in a particular newsgroup
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Depends where "in here" is... This thread appears to be cross-posted
> to about seven different groups. I'm in uk.rec.driving, where you? :-)

Hehehe! Good point! uk.local.hampshire

>>... Not that that
>>bothers me overly. Also, we must allow that change is constant.
>
> Change for change sake? Not exactly a strong point.

I didn't mention anything about "for change's sake". The change has evolved
and must be considered. Constantly banging one's head against it will not
hold it back.

>>> and continue so to do
>>> after being reminded of the fact, for some reason rarely say anything
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I can't see any reasons other than deliberate contrarianism or basic
> idleness to continue top-posting in a bottom-posting group.

Sorry, mate, but Usenet is the wild frontier, there are no rules. If people
are top-posting, there must be a reason for it. MY reasons are not any that
you listed. My reasons are that it's easier for me. My point here is not
that I think top-posting is superior but that I will challenge each and
every time the w.nkers who attempt to force others to do what they want them
to do, with no compelling reason for their way being best. For every
bottom-posting argument, there is a corresponding top-posting rebuttal, and
vice versa. It's not that hard to follow these threads, I think we should do
so and stop whining. A thread that is entirely top-posted is just as easy to
read as one that is entirely bottom-posted. This is, of course, if one has
been following the thread and doesn't have the memory retention of a
goldfish. For those latecomers, they must, as in life, catch up in their own
time.

>>... I see the merits of
>>both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sometimes wayward propogation of usenet messages, helps to keep the
> discussion in context.

The problem is not top or bottom-postng but sloppy posting. Railing against
a logical top-post just makes one look like a prat. Both for not being smart
enough to work it out and for having a go "just coz".

> I suppose that a pure top-posted thread could do the same thing, but
> you'd need to read it backwards to attempt to make any sense of it.

Why do you need to read the whole thread everytime? This is where your (the
bottom-posting crew) logic starts to crumble. Just read the latest post. For
me, if that's at the top, it's easier.

> Once top and bottom posting gets intermingled any sense seems to
> evaporate.

That is, as I said, a function of sloppy posting. Take up that banner and
I'll hold the other end. Blame it all on top-posting and I'll fault your
logic every time.

>>> As to whether it's a generational or intelligence
>>> problem I don't know. But it's the same in all the groups that I read.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> But you're not a "standard" top-poster... :-)  You've adapted your
> style to fit in with those arguing with you.

Hehehe! Like I said, I tend to follow how the thread has progressed. If I'm
the first to reply, you can bet that that baby is going at the top!

> Well done!  Have a gold star.  :-)

'bliged!
Jeff York - 10 May 2007 15:28 GMT
>>>>>>>>> What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through
>>>>>>>>> everything
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>logical fallacy. One cannot have a decent discussion without logic, or the
>pointing-out of illogic, playing a part.

Agreed in part. But.. "Ad hominem" doesn't in my opinion, really apply
to my contention. I'll agree that I'm attacking the person rather than
the argument, but that is because, in my experience, the type of
person and the validity and/or information value of their postings
correlate very closely.  I may indeed miss the odd gem, but in
exchange I miss an awful lot of crap.

>>>> It's experience-based pragmatism... In general, those who ignore the
>>>> accepted etiquette in a particular newsgroup
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>and must be considered. Constantly banging one's head against it will not
>hold it back.

A change, top-posting, has occurred. In the opinion of a lot of people
it is not a change for the better, thus any change to it is purely for
change's sake.

>>>> and continue so to do
>>>> after being reminded of the fact, for some reason rarely say anything
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>are top-posting, there must be a reason for it. MY reasons are not any that
>you listed. My reasons are that it's easier for me.

... or to put it another way, "idleness".

>... My point here is not
>that I think top-posting is superior but that I will challenge each and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>so and stop whining. A thread that is entirely top-posted is just as easy to
>read as one that is entirely bottom-posted.

I disagree. If there is, like in this discussion, interleaved
paragraphs,  should the interleaving be placed above the text to which
it refers? If yes, then your reading pattern becomes a bit odd... If
no, then you're back to anarchy.

>... This is, of course, if one has
>been following the thread and doesn't have the memory retention of a
>goldfish. For those latecomers, they must, as in life, catch up in their own
>time.

Unfortunately, usenet is not a guaranteed propogation. It's not *that*
uncommon for a posting containing a reply to arrive before the post
containing the originating question...

>>>... I see the merits of
>>>both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>a logical top-post just makes one look like a prat. Both for not being smart
>enough to work it out and for having a go "just coz".

Maybe... But there seem to be *so few* "logical top-posts".  :-(

>> I suppose that a pure top-posted thread could do the same thing, but
>> you'd need to read it backwards to attempt to make any sense of it.
>
>Why do you need to read the whole thread everytime? This is where your (the
>bottom-posting crew) logic starts to crumble. Just read the latest post. For
>me, if that's at the top, it's easier.

See my comment about usenet propogation...

<snipped the rest because essentially I agree with what you've said>
mattic - 10 May 2007 23:58 GMT
> Agreed in part. But.. "Ad hominem" doesn't in my opinion, really apply
> to my contention. I'll agree that I'm attacking the person rather than
> the argument, but that is because, in my experience, the type of
> person and the validity and/or information value of their postings
> correlate very closely.  I may indeed miss the odd gem, but in
> exchange I miss an awful lot of crap.

If, as you say, that is YOUR experience, I cannot argue. I hope you'll allow
that your experience is just that. Yours.
Many may well share your experience and, equally, many may not.

>>I didn't mention anything about "for change's sake". The change has
>>evolved
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> it is not a change for the better, thus any change to it is purely for
> change's sake.

Yet there are a lot of people who consider it IS a change for the better.
And this is my point, the camps are divided. The only difference I see is
that one doesn't see the top-posting camp banging on about it all the time.

>>Sorry, mate, but Usenet is the wild frontier, there are no rules. If
>>people
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> ... or to put it another way, "idleness".

You can use negative words all you like, I see right through them and it
won't change my preference .

>>... My point here is not
>>that I think top-posting is superior but that I will challenge each and
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> it refers? If yes, then your reading pattern becomes a bit odd... If
> no, then you're back to anarchy.

No, you don't disagree at all, you have raised an entirely different
tangent. I agree entirely that interleaved should be below, no one has ever
suggested otherwise.

>>... This is, of course, if one has
>>been following the thread and doesn't have the memory retention of a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> uncommon for a posting containing a reply to arrive before the post
> containing the originating question...

I've never seen that happen. If you say it does, fine, but I expect it's
rare.

>>>>... I see the merits of
>>>>both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Maybe... But there seem to be *so few* "logical top-posts".  :-(

Hehehe, then you should do what I insist upon at work and that is "we do not
use the systems to manage our people, we manage our people". In other words,
manage the numpties by exception and based on their comments, rather than
the position of those comments on the page.
Depresion - 21 Apr 2007 11:56 GMT
> 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 biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

Just because you read top to bottom and left to right doesn't mean that every
culture in the world dose. What gives the English speaking world the right to
dictate to the rest of the world how is "easy to read"?
David Taylor - 21 Apr 2007 12:29 GMT
>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> culture in the world dose. What gives the English speaking world the right to
> dictate to the rest of the world how is "easy to read"?

Who is dictating to the "rest of the world"?

Other cultures can have their own rules.  This is a UK group, and we
have our rules, to suit our language.
Phil Aypee - 22 Apr 2007 10:27 GMT
Hi,

David wrote:
"Other cultures can have their own rules.
This is a UK group, and we have our rules, to suit our language."

For *me* these are not rules, they are, at best, guidelines.

Top posting, bottom posting - and any other kind of posting - are actually irrelevant.
What is relevant is keeping the sense of what was posted, what is being replied to.
A good post does this and a bad post does not.
The language makes *no* difference.

Having to wade through a load of quoted guff to read a few words of apparent nonsense is bad posting.
At least if the nonsense is at the top I can skip it quicker than if it's at the bottom!

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

Starbuck - 22 Apr 2007 11:01 GMT
Well said
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Take care,
> Phil.

Well said

(posted top and bottom, so everyone is happy)
Tommy - 22 Apr 2007 11:05 GMT
> Having to wade through a load of quoted guff to read a few words of
> apparent nonsense is bad posting. At least if the nonsense is at the
> top I can skip it quicker than if it's at the bottom!
>
> Take care,
> Phil.

Whoah there - Common Sense alert

This is not allowed here :-))
Bev - 22 Apr 2007 11:27 GMT
Tommy warbled...

> > Having to wade through a load of quoted guff to read a few words of
> > apparent nonsense is bad posting. At least if the nonsense is at the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> This is not allowed here :-))

Hmmm...
So if it's not immediately obvious what the response is about, then it
is common sense to have to scroll down to read the context, then scroll
back up to read the answer with the context and back up further to post
a reply?

Some posters to this thread would have us believe that this wouldn't
happen because assuming you're following the threads correctly, you'd
have just read the previous post. What nonsense! Don't these people
return to newsgroup postings after periods of time doing other things?
The alternative would be to have to go back to a separate post and re-
read that, then return to the current post. Now that doesn't seem to
make much sense to me even before you start factoring in the fact that
someone might choose to hide posts they've read (so they'd have to opt
to show the read posts) or might have deleted posts locally after a
short period of time (in which case they'd have to re-download it or
rely on Google Gropes[sic]!)
Signature

Bev.

Ed Chilada - 22 Apr 2007 18:30 GMT
> Now that doesn't seem to
>make much sense to me even before you start factoring in the fact that
>someone might choose to hide posts they've read (so they'd have to opt
>to show the read posts) or might have deleted posts locally after a
>short period of time (in which case they'd have to re-download it or
>rely on Google Gropes[sic]!)

If that's the case, then the problem is with that person's setup which
clearly doesn't work for them. Expecting thousands of people to post
in a different style so as to support the way they've set their
newsreader up is a little optimistic!
NM - 22 Apr 2007 18:46 GMT
>> Now that doesn't seem to
>> make much sense to me even before you start factoring in the fact that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> in a different style so as to support the way they've set their
> newsreader up is a little optimistic!

Its convention innit, like driving on the left in this country.
advisable but not compulsory and very helpful to other road users, of
course you always get those who want to be different, you are a cyclist
by any chance?
Ed Chilada - 22 Apr 2007 19:52 GMT
>>> Now that doesn't seem to
>>> make much sense to me even before you start factoring in the fact that
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
>Its convention innit, like driving on the left in this country.

Fairly sure that's a law and probably because there's very dire
consequences if people decided to do something different. The way
quotes are laid out in usenet isn't quite so dire and in fact
top-posting can and does co-exist quite happily in many groups.

>advisable but not compulsory and very helpful to other road users, of
>course you always get those who want to be different, you are a cyclist
>by any chance?

No.
Phil Aypee - 23 Apr 2007 08:20 GMT
Hi Bev,

I said
¦| > > Having to wade through a load of quoted guff to read a few words of
¦| > > apparent nonsense is bad posting. At least if the nonsense is at the
¦| > > top I can skip it quicker than if it's at the bottom!

You said
¦| So if it's not immediately obvious what the response is about, then it
¦| is common sense to have to scroll down to read the context, then scroll
¦| back up to read the answer with the context and back up further to post
¦| a reply?

The whole point is that any post (with quoted posts at top, bottom, left or right) *should* make it obvious what it's about.
If it needs the whole bloody thread quoted (and most don't), then fine - please quote it.
Otherwise it is only necessary to quote the relevant part (or sometimes nothing at all).

You also said
¦| Some posters to this thread would have us believe that this wouldn't
¦| happen because assuming you're following the threads correctly, you'd
¦| have just read the previous post. What nonsense! Don't these people
¦| return to newsgroup postings after periods of time doing other things?

This is irrelevant.

Apart from my previous point, a thread often *starts* being about one thing and mutates to something totally different.
By your logic every post in the thread should be quoted however irrelevant to the actual (primary) post it is.

Intelligent posting makes it clear what the post is about.
Other posts are usually not worth reading.
Either can have vast amounts of quoted text posted at top, a lot of it irrelevant.
I can only find which it is by scrolling through to the (often few) words of *real* post.

Selective quoting of relevant text takes time and effort.
The lazy way is to quote everything, relevant or not.
Me, I prefer to "do as I would be done by".

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

jf - 23 Apr 2007 10:37 GMT
>Selective quoting of relevant text takes time and effort.
>The lazy way is to quote everything, relevant or not.
>Me, I prefer to "do as I would be done by".

       With apologies to uk.local.surrey subscribers who've seen this
       post before:

Curiously the issue of correct posting to the Usenet was the subject of
a paper published by the Tavistock Institute about seven or eight years
ago. If they've got a website, it can probably be found.

The authors' findings were that the reason why many people have
difficulty understanding the incredibly simple guidelines on posting is
because many schools don't teach that most important subject of all:
philosophy. Many people are not being taught how to think. Arranging
thoughts logically does require training of the mind. At its simplest
this is writing a letter. A letter of complaint, for example, does
require a marshalling of thoughts, arranging of facts, and then pinning
them down on paper in a coherent manner.

Many are so ill-equipped for this task that large organizations now
encourage their customers to use telephones so that their operators can
do their customers' thinking for them: asking them questions in a
logical sequence, and so on. And it saves return letter-writing costs or
ferreting on their part because their customers are now incapable of
supplying all the information necessary to resolve a problem.

Even writing CVs is getting beyond the limited cognitive abilities of
many causing them to resort to professional CV writers. The authors
cited a boiler-plate software package for writing CVs! A discipline that
requires little more than the expression of a few facts and figures
written on one side of a sheet of paper on a subject that the author
ought to be an expert on, and they're sunk.

Good thinking requires good training. I was fortunate to have teachers
who trained my mind to work clearly and to arrange facts/ideas and to
present them logically. My job depends on it. I don't profess to be a
brilliant thinker; the reason my mediocre cognitive ability has made me
a millionaire is because so many are worse thinkers than I am. The way
society is being structured today ensures that many can muddle their way
through life without having to think too much. But when they're
presented with the simple communication conventions of the Usenet, which
has evolved over quarter of a century as a global forum and therefore
requires fairly dynamic thinking to work properly, they're buggered. Not
only are the conventions not understood, but the reasoning behind the
evolution of those conventions is not understood either.

Firstly: trimming follow-ups to salient points does require the exercise
of editorial skill i.e. judgement, and judgement is either instinctive
or is acquired through training. Philosophy is the only practical tool
to apply that training. Secondly: actually answering a specific point
within a post and focussing on that point also requires a trained mind.
Confronted with these seemingly insuperable obstacles, the untrained
mind simply gives up the unequal struggle and says: "bugger it -- I'll
just top-post. Someone else can figure out what I mean.”

Conventions in communication are essential, particular so with Usenet
that consists of millions of people world-wide subscribing to around
100,000 newsgroups on an equal number of subjects. For it to work
depends on the observation of protocols. The essential protocols that
control distribution are imbedded in the headers of a post and not
usually within users' control, but  control of the content of posts and
therefore understanding rests with the users.

To ensure that the majority derive the greatest enjoyment and benefit
from the Usenet a few simple conventions exist. They are not difficult
to understand or follow if one takes a little trouble and is prepared to
show some respect for others. It's important to remember that a post has
one author but many readers therefore the majority should be always be
considered.

Another advantage is that mastery of those conventions enables one to
move with confidence from newsgroup to newsgroup and converse with the
world.

The Usenet is a remarkable tool that is worthy of respect rather than
the consequences of such muddle-headed thinking.
Signature

James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

Ed Chilada - 23 Apr 2007 11:21 GMT
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>require a marshalling of thoughts, arranging of facts, and then pinning
>them down on paper in a coherent manner.

Viewing usenet posts in that manner shows a complete lack of
understanding of what usenet is commonly used for these days. People
often aren't arranging their facts and creating a formal letter etc..,
they're simply using it for a chat medium - usually of trivial
subjects. Top-posting lends itself to such a style of conversation
exchange.

Granted, the report is at least 7 years old, which gives it some
excuse for being so out of date, but AFAIR, usenet was used like that
quite a lot back then too.
jf - 23 Apr 2007 13:44 GMT
>>>Selective quoting of relevant text takes time and effort.
>>>The lazy way is to quote everything, relevant or not.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>because many schools don't teach that most important subject of all:
>>philosophy.

>Viewing usenet posts in that manner shows a complete lack of
>understanding of what usenet is commonly used for these days. People
>often aren't arranging their facts and creating a formal letter etc..,
>they're simply using it for a chat medium - usually of trivial
>subjects. Top-posting lends itself to such a style of conversation
>exchange.

Top-posting has its merits. It's the medieval chart equivalent of 'here
there be dragons' except the message today is 'here there be a fuckwits'
and the offerings of such woolly thinkers can be tabbed past.

I've always used the Usenet for chat. But even chat has to cope with the
vagaries of nntp propagation which is why following a few incredible
simple conventions is a good idea. I agree that they're probably not a
good idea for comprehensive-educated fuckwits because following a few
conventions is contrary to the I-can't-be-arsed and
why-the-devil-should-I-show-consideration-for-others creed. They have
little say over the essential conventions of orderly headers yet as soon
as they're into an area in which they're trusted to be sensible,
insanity grips them.

Richard Christopher of the RNIB's plea for consideration of blind
members of the Usenet community ought to be enough but obviously it
isn't. One wonders why people took the trouble to join the Usenet
community if they don't like it's few conventions.

>Granted, the report is at least 7 years old, which gives it some
>excuse for being so out of date

Logical thinking is never out of date. The philosophy of Socrates and
his contemporaries is as valid today as it was over 2000 years ago.

Signature

James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

Ed Chilada - 23 Apr 2007 20:56 GMT
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>there be dragons' except the message today is 'here there be a fuckwits'
>and the offerings of such woolly thinkers can be tabbed past.

Suit yourself, I doubt they're going to miss you anymore than you'll
miss them. Personally I don't have such a blinkered outlook (pardon
the pun).

>I've always used the Usenet for chat. But even chat has to cope with the
>vagaries of nntp propagation

Which isn't anything like as bad as it used to be, and has been
reasonably quick (with very little out-of-order and missing messages),
for many years. If you disagree, I suggest you check with your ISP.

> which is why following a few incredible simple conventions is a good idea.

Except largely out of date and irrelevant now. Times change.

> I agree that they're probably not a
>good idea for comprehensive-educated fuckwits because following a few
>conventions is contrary to the I-can't-be-arsed and
>why-the-devil-should-I-show-consideration-for-others creed.

Y'see I consider moaning at people and trying to insist that they
follow your own preferences is showing a lack of consideration for
others. "Show consideration for me, me, me, by abandoning your own
preferences and adopting mine", is effectively what that asks.

>Richard Christopher of the RNIB's plea for consideration of blind
>members of the Usenet community

Which is? I'd have thought that if blind, top posting would be the
easiest way to go, rather than trying to find the right spot to insert
new text.

> One wonders why people took the trouble to join the Usenet
> community if they don't like it's few conventions.

If there's such a gap in your appreciation that leaves you wondering -
yet it's clear that thousands of these people do, can you not also
appreciate that perhaps you don't know the whole picture? Why do you
know better than these thousands of people who prefer top-posting and
don't seem to have a problem with it? Next time you're out in public,
in a town centre, take a look around you. Have a look at what everyone
is wearing and consider whether you'd wear the same stuff. From the
old bloke in a tweed jacket to the chav in the hoodie and bling, to
the teens in their sports gear or the posh bloke with his labels.
They're probably worlds apart in their background and thinking to you,
and yet all these demographics use the internet these days and their
preferences are just as valid as yours. Just don't expect them to
match.

>>Granted, the report is at least 7 years old, which gives it some
>>excuse for being so out of date
>
>Logical thinking is never out of date. The philosophy of Socrates and
>his contemporaries is as valid today as it was over 2000 years ago.

When the input to logical thinking is out of date, then the output
becomes out of date too.
jf - 23 Apr 2007 21:41 GMT
>JF whibbled thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>reasonably quick (with very little out-of-order and missing messages),
>for many years. If you disagree, I suggest you check with your ISP.

Believe me, there are parts of the world where it's pretty dire. If you
dislike the Usenet's guidlines on posting, why not get them changed.
There is a procedure. RFC stands for Requests for Comments. So comment
away.

>> which is why following a few incredible simple conventions is a good idea.
>
>Except largely out of date and irrelevant now. Times change.

You're absolutely wrong. All the down the line, you're wrong. The RFCs
are still current and still very much up-to-date. Of course times
change. Who said they didn't? But fundamental truths and logic don't
change.

>Y'see I consider moaning at people and trying to insist that they
>follow your own preferences is showing a lack of consideration for
>others. "Show consideration for me, me, me, by abandoning your own
>preferences and adopting mine", is effectively what that asks.

Again you're wrong. Hopelessly wrong. My only preferences on posting
style is my dislike of American paragraphing, which seems to be a Usenet
norm. But I use it because I recognise its advantages over my preferred
imperial paragraphing. I'll leave arrogance over posting style to the
hordes who think their way is best merely because they think it's best.
Those who want to preach some crackpot  message about the imagined
advantages of top-posting are wasting their time telling me about it.
They should post their reasoning to the addresses given in the RFCs.
There's already long threads on the subject extolling the imagined
virtues of top-posting. Unfortunately the obstacles of logic and common
sense are proving somewhat formidable for those who wouldn't recognise
logic if it twisted their heads off and crapped down their necks.

>>Richard Christopher of the RNIB's plea for consideration of blind
>>members of the Usenet community
>
>Which is? I'd have thought that if blind, top posting would be the
>easiest way to go, rather than trying to find the right spot to insert
>new text.

Again, you're wrong. Newsclients for the blind are Usenet compliant.
What else can they be?

>> One wonders why people took the trouble to join the Usenet
>> community if they don't like it's few conventions.

> Why do you
>know better than these thousands of people who prefer top-posting and
>don't seem to have a problem with it?

I've never ever made such an absurd claim. Actually I rather like
top-posters efforts. They immediately tell me that that the author is a
muddled thinker with absurd views, so flimsy that they need propping up
with ludicrous shucks yahboo responses.

It all boils down to the simple point: one wonders why those who don't
like or don't understand Usenet's guidelines bothered to join the Usenet
community in the first place, and why, having joined, they can't be
bothered to submit their views to the appropriate Request for Comments
address.

Signature

James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)

Ed Chilada - 23 Apr 2007 22:52 GMT
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Believe me, there are parts of the world where it's pretty dire.

OK, such as? And if missing messages is a problem, doesn't top-posting
usually provide the most complete quote of the missing message?
Interleaved posters often require context and will trim and snip the
message they're replying to. This will often give a skewed impression
of that original post.

> If you dislike the Usenet's guidlines on posting, why not get them changed.
> There is a procedure. RFC stands for Requests for Comments. So comment
> away.

Oh I'm really not that excited about it. RFCs have absolutely no
jurisdiction here so there's really no point changing it anyway. As
you've found, people are going to ignore it and do what they feel
works for them (and thousands of others), anyway.

>>> which is why following a few incredible simple conventions is a good idea.
>>
>>Except largely out of date and irrelevant now. Times change.
>
>You're absolutely wrong. All the down the line, you're wrong. The RFCs
>are still current and still very much up-to-date.

Which specific RFC on this topic are you referring to? Perhaps we can
take a look at it. Last time I looked at it, it hadn't changed much in
years.

> Of course times change. Who said they didn't? But fundamental truths
> and logic don't change.

That's a nice soundbite, but which fundamental truths are you
referring to? Like I said, times change and the result of logic
applied to a different picture will produce different output.

>>Y'see I consider moaning at people and trying to insist that they
>>follow your own preferences is showing a lack of consideration for
>>others. "Show consideration for me, me, me, by abandoning your own
>>preferences and adopting mine", is effectively what that asks.
>
>Again you're wrong. Hopelessly wrong. My only

I wasn't being specific about you, I was speaking generally. Asking
and expecting others to follow the conventions that you happen to find
best, whilst totally disregarding the multitudes of different
circumstances and reasons why someone else might find other
preferences to be better is *not* showing consideration for them.

> I'll leave arrogance over posting style to the
> hordes who think their way is best merely because they think it's best.

Oh.. and you're different because? At least they don't try to foist
their preferences on you. They just get on with having their own
conversations in the way in which they prefer. They think it's best
because, for them, it *is* best. Just accept that not everyone is like
you.

>Those who want to preach some crackpot  message about the imagined
>advantages of top-posting are wasting their time telling me about it.

Because you're blinkered to other people's way of thinking. I can see
this in what you say. They're "wasting their time", because you just
don't even want to listen. Yet you'd want them to listen to you and be
"considerate" of your preferences, so much as to adopt them? Come
on...

>They should post their reasoning to the addresses given in the RFCs.

Holy crap, no they shouldn't! Think about this - we're talking about
teenagers, perhaps kids, chatting with other kids on usenet - perhaps
about Playstations and the like. They have no reason to care about
RFCs and none of them are even bound by them anyway. Stop thinking
about this from your own POV for just one moment, and imagine you're a
14 yo kid who wants to talk with people about the Wii or something.
It's a whole different demographic and shock-horror, they might have
different preferences. They might even prefer to talk in txt-spk, but
who are we to say they're wrong and point at some web document written
by middle-aged men a few decades ago?!

>There's already long threads on the subject extolling the imagined
>virtues of top-posting.

Doesn't that tell you something? If all those people (assuming it's
not one person writing all these threads!), think that way, then can't
you appreciate that they actually *feel* that way? Do you think they
want to just annoy you? Or perhaps that they *genuinely* prefer
top-posting and the people they talk to tend to prefer it too?

>>>Richard Christopher of the RNIB's plea for consideration of blind
>>>members of the Usenet community
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Again, you're wrong.

You avoided the question. Please tell me what this "plea" was, or
provide a reference.

> Newsclients for the blind are Usenet compliant.

Which specific clients are you talking about? How do they handle
quoting and how do they enable the blind user to put their new text
inline with quotes, as I'm doing here?

> What else can they be?

They only have to be NNTP compliant in order to function. They can
top-post or bottom-post and that doesn't change.

>>> One wonders why people took the trouble to join the Usenet
>>> community if they don't like it's few conventions.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I've never ever made such an absurd claim.

Superb, I think we're getting somewhere in your appreciation that it's
absurd.

> Actually I rather like
>top-posters efforts. They immediately tell me that that the author is a
>muddled thinker with absurd views, so flimsy that they need propping up
>with ludicrous shucks yahboo responses.

Yeah, you've said this much already. I'm amused that you seem to think
that the way in which someone lays out their post is more important
and more indicative than what they actually say.

>It all boils down to the simple point: one wonders why those who don't
>like or don't understand Usenet's guidelines bothered to join the Usenet
>community in the first place, and

And, like I said when you last presented the same point - you're at
least appreciating that there is something about it you don't
understand if it's left you wondering. However, you're acting as if
you *do* understand everyone else's POV because you aren't
acknowledging that other people's preferences are just as valid as
yours.

>why, having joined, they can't be bothered to submit their views
> to the appropriate Request for Comments address.

Because it's a pointless waste of time. They come here to chat, they
chat. End of story. If some geeks and netcops want to get upset
because they were here first and they want to believe that what they
decided 25 years ago should still be enforced today, then that's up to
them. But they better get used to being ignored - as I'm sure they
probably are these days.
Ed Chilada - 23 Apr 2007 23:14 GMT
>>>> which is why following a few incredible simple conventions is a good idea.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>take a look at it. Last time I looked at it, it hadn't changed much in
>years.

The most likely candidate, and the one I was remembering, is 1855:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt

Written (or last updated?) nearly 12 years ago, in 1995. The only
apparently relevant section is this one:

"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!"

Which appears to rule out interleaved posting (which we've both been
doing), just as much as it does top posting. Hmm.. Are you going to
lobby for it to be changed before continuing in your non-compliant
style?

Oh, and I notice that it gives the propogation problem as the
reasoning behind its conclusions. Like I said, when you put old data
into previously sound logic, the results are going to be old too.
Phil Aypee - 24 Apr 2007 08:48 GMT
Hi,

Ed, you wrote about UseNet posters that "they're simply using it for a chat medium".
I didn't (and don't) see why that justifies quoting any part of the thread irrelevant to the post proper.

Could you say why?

You did suggest that it facilitates a conversational exchange.
When I have a conversation I don't preface every contribution with *every* previous contribution, so perhaps you could explain further.
(And for those who might suggest that writing should be different to speech, I don't necessarily disagree.)

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

Phil Aypee - 23 Apr 2007 22:52 GMT
Hi,

Since I don't have the Tavistock Institute paper (the one jf referred to) I'll continue posting in the way I perceive as sensible.

Though I didn't learn philosophy formally I did study ergonomics.
Top posting as usually done is not ergonomically sound - in fact it is ergonomically silly and confusing (i.e. wrong).

Funnily enough most such silly ideas are beloved of people who don't understand how to present argument/discussion in a logical and lucid way.
Particularly they don't understand how not to confuse or confound others.
They are usually sure that any fault is with the reader, not the writer.
But excessive verbiage and obscure words (like 'verbiage') serve to obscure meaning though usually meant to shine a light on it.

It is the writer who should make sure his writing is clear enough to make misunderstanding difficult at least - and near impossible at best.
Long and obscure posts are as silly as excessive quoting of previous posts - both increase the likelihood of misunderstanding.

People who post in English really should read Gowers' "Complete Plain Words" before committing prose.
Reading the brothers Fowler might also prove useful.

But all should observe the KISS methodology - "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

jf - 24 Apr 2007 07:04 GMT
>People who post in English really should read Gowers' "Complete Plain
>Words" before committing prose.
>Reading the brothers Fowler might also prove useful.

And Follett, of course. Wilson, that is.
Phil Aypee - 24 Apr 2007 09:15 GMT
Hi jf,

Being originally a US citizen I should have known of Wilson Follett - but I didn't.
A cursory Google shows that he was specifically concerned with American English.
The brothers Fowler, Gowers', Partridge et al. were more concerned with British English, with which I'm happiest.

I'll try to learn something new again tomorrow!

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"A plethora of words becomes the apoplexy of reason."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

Phil Aypee - 23 Apr 2007 09:20 GMT
Hi,

It just occurred to me to look at the (few) other NGs I subscribe to.

It is surprisingly rare for previous posts to be quoted *at all*.
Complaints about this are only marginally more common than rocking-horse sh.t (and topics seldom mutate as much as here).

Did earlier news servers hold only a couple of days posts, older ones being deleted (a real question, not rhetorical)?
This would explain the top posting phenomenon.

My news server (one of the few free ones, run as a charity by enthusiasts) holds a couple of months back posts - for anything older Google is necessary (or another archiver).
This is ample to cover normal holidays - and most other absences from UseNet.

Related to this, my newsreader (and all others I've seen) marks unread posts as such.

So I truly believe that quoting anything more than necessary for the sense of the post is undesirable.
There may be news servers that only hold a couple of days posts - but I rather doubt it.
It's certainly very unlikely that there are any in the Anglophone world.

Take care,
Phil.
Signature

"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

NM - 23 Apr 2007 09:25 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> There may be news servers that only hold a couple of days posts - but I rather doubt it.
> It's certainly very unlikely that there are any in the Anglophone world.

Most will remember when Doug used to always complain if his posts were
snipped, he regarded it as censorship but recently he hasn't been
complaining.
Rupert - 23 Apr 2007 10:01 GMT
>> Hi,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> snipped, he regarded it as censorship but recently he hasn't been
> complaining.

Yawwwwwn!!
NM - 23 Apr 2007 10:06 GMT
> Yawwwwwn!!

Sorry did we wake you? Now you can go back to sleep as you obviously
havn't anything to say..
Clive. - 23 Apr 2007 11:24 GMT
I agree completely.
Signature

Clive.

Dave (Sgt. Pepper) - 23 Apr 2007 16:54 GMT
Clive, you are a total w.nker ... I thought you would agree.

> I agree completely.
NM - 23 Apr 2007 17:15 GMT
> Clive, you are a total w.nker ... I thought you would agree.
>
>> I agree completely.

<grin>
mattic - 07 May 2007 14:04 GMT
> Tommy warbled...
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> have just read the previous post. What nonsense! Don't these people
> return to newsgroup postings after periods of time doing other things?

Yes, and amazingly enough, I manage to work it out with no more than a
second's thought. Are you saying that bottom posters like it that way
because they aren't mentally agile enough to work that out? It would
certainly explain the uproar.

But, no, I think this, like many of the actions of the so-called net-cops,
is simply a bunch of old folks, with no real power in their ordinary lives,
clinging on to an old guideline that allows them to, annonymously, play the
righteous indignation card as hard as they like.

Bit sad really.

Post how you like, I'll work it out.
MrBitsy - 07 May 2007 14:22 GMT
>> Tommy warbled...
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> scroll back up to read the answer with the context and back up
>> further to post a reply?

Ok, you won't mind the reply here then.

>> Some posters to this thread would have us believe that this wouldn't
>> happen because assuming you're following the threads correctly, you'd
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Post how you like, I'll work it out.

Signature

MrBitsy

mattic - 07 May 2007 15:21 GMT
No, I don't. I found it instantly, even when you were TRYING to be
difficult. Funny that.

>>> Tommy warbled...
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>>
>> Post how you like, I'll work it out.
MrBitsy - 07 May 2007 17:33 GMT
> No, I don't. I found it instantly, even when you were TRYING to be
> difficult. Funny that.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not allowed here :-))

Didn't say it was difficult, I wondered if you minded it being there.

>>>> Hmmm...
>>>> So if it's not immediately obvious what the response is about, then
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>> --
>> MrBitsy

Signature

MrBitsy

mattic - 07 May 2007 17:54 GMT
And I told you, no.

>> No, I don't. I found it instantly, even when you were TRYING to be
>> difficult. Funny that.
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>>> --
>>> MrBitsy
Caruthers Carstairs-MacKracken - 07 May 2007 17:07 GMT
> But, no, I think this, like many of the actions of the so-called net-cops,
> is simply a bunch of old folks, with no real power in their ordinary lives,
> clinging on to an old guideline that allows them to, annonymously, play the
> righteous indignation card as hard as they like.
>
> Bit sad really.

Spot on! The really sad thing is that netKKKops
have no clout. That's official.
Signature

Caruthers Carstairs-MacKracken

Lord High Troll of the Highlands and Islands.

Ïþ·ã - 09 May 2007 06:06 GMT
»¶Ó­¹âÁÙºÓ±±¾­¼ÃÈÕ±¨Íø£ºhttp://www.hbjjrb.com/
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:FtF%h.34950$M.29821@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>> Tommy warbled...
>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Post how you like, I'll work it out.
PC Paul - 21 Apr 2007 19:19 GMT
>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> world the right to dictate to the rest of the world how is "easy to
> read"?

Because the English speaking world invented the Internet?
Bev - 21 Apr 2007 21:44 GMT
PC Paul warbled...

> > Just because you read top to bottom and left to right doesn't mean
> > that every culture in the world dose. What gives the English speaking
> > world the right to dictate to the rest of the world how is "easy to
> > read"?
>
> Because the English speaking world invented the Internet?

I'd have thought it was more to do with the fact that these particular
posts are written in English!

Sort of English, anyway!  ;D
Signature

Bev.

Clive. - 22 Apr 2007 18:38 GMT
>Just because you read top to bottom and left to right doesn't mean that every
>culture in the world dose. What gives the English speaking world the right to
>dictate to the rest of the world how is "easy to read"?
Perhaps the clue is that the writing is in English, Duh.
Signature

Clive.

Zoab - 23 Apr 2007 23:22 GMT
>>Just because you read top to bottom and left to right doesn't mean that
>>every
>>culture in the world dose. What gives the English speaking world the right
>>to
>>dictate to the rest of the world how is "easy to read"?
> Perhaps the clue is that the writing is in English, Duh.
What a stupid thread. Who gives a f.ck anyway.
Alan Holmes - 23 Apr 2007 23:37 GMT
>>>Just because you read top to bottom and left to right doesn't mean that
>>>every
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Perhaps the clue is that the writing is in English, Duh.
> What a stupid thread. Who gives a f.ck anyway.

You must as you have responded!
Zoab - 26 Apr 2007 12:38 GMT
>>>>Just because you read top to bottom and left to right doesn't mean that
>>>>every
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You must as you have responded!

  Well at least it has stopped
mattic - 05 May 2007 12:00 GMT
Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one), then
CHRONOLOGICALLY they would have followed the normal course of a
canversation. I would have read then, as they arrived, only having the read
the top-most post and would have understood it perfectly.

How about I take your oh-so-witty (yet strangely idiotic, once analysed)
example and take it to its extreme logical conclusion for BOTTOM POSTING:

PERSON A SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

PERSON B SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
A: Top-posting

PERSON A SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
A: Top-posting
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

PERSON B SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
A: Top-posting
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text

How is that better?

> 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 biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
kj - 05 May 2007 12:14 GMT
how is what better?

> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one), then
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>> A: Top-posting.
>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
mattic - 05 May 2007 14:26 GMT
That's a function of editing, not of top or bottom posting.

> how is what better?
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>>> A: Top-posting.
>>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
kj - 05 May 2007 14:58 GMT
> That's a function of editing, not of top or bottom posting.
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>>>> A: Top-posting.
>>>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

a mere jest as well....I don't care either way either
mattic - 06 May 2007 01:27 GMT
:-)

> a mere jest as well....I don't care either way either
MrBitsy - 05 May 2007 12:22 GMT
> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> How is that better?

No, the last post should have been ...

PERSON B SAYS:
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text

Signature

MrBitsy

mattic - 05 May 2007 14:26 GMT
>> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
>> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text

If you say so. :-)
'Mike' - 05 May 2007 14:30 GMT
Why do people get so irate over top posting?

Aren't there more important things in life? Such as calling for a total ban
on smoking for example?

Kind regards

Mike

Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

>>> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
>>> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> If you say so. :-)
mattic - 06 May 2007 01:27 GMT
Except for cigars.

> Why do people get so irate over top posting?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Mike
Ïþ·ã - 09 May 2007 06:04 GMT
»¶Ó­¹âÁÙºÓ±±¾­¼ÃÈÕ±¨Íø£ºhttp://www.hbjjrb.com/
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:sh9%h.34300$M.6367@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Except for cigars.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> Mike
Rob. - 06 May 2007 10:06 GMT
> Why do people get so irate over top posting?
>
> Aren't there more important things in life? Such as calling for a total ban
> on smoking for example?

More important the daft rules about displaying no smoking signs
everywhere from 1 July.  It would make more sense if they just required
signs to go up where it is allowed.
'Mike' - 06 May 2007 10:11 GMT
>> Why do people get so irate over top posting?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> from 1 July.  It would make more sense if they just required signs to go
> up where it is allowed.

or save on yellow paint by putting that down where you CAN park ;-)

Mike

Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

SteveH - 06 May 2007 10:31 GMT
> Why do people get so irate over top posting?
>
> Aren't there more important things in life? Such as calling for a total ban
> on smoking for example?

You have a very empty life if you consider that to be important.
Signature

SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

mattic - 05 May 2007 14:26 GMT
I noticed a lot of typos in my paragraph, I've cleaned it up here for
clarity.

**********************************************************
Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one), then
CHRONOLOGICALLY they would have followed the normal course of a
conversation. I would have read them, as they arrived, only having to read
the top-most post and would have understood it perfectly.
**********************************************************

> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one),
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>> A: Top-posting.
>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
JNugent - 05 May 2007 17:17 GMT
> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one), then
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> How is that better?

How is that proper practice?
'Mike' - 05 May 2007 17:31 GMT
Would you all say that top posting is a matter of life and death?

I only ask because this thread has been going on for such a long time.

Kind regards

Mike

Signature

...............................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

>> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
>> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one),
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> How is that proper practice?
Jon - 05 May 2007 21:19 GMT
3d&6d@woolies.com declared for all the world to hear...
> Would you all say that top posting is a matter of life and death?

Absolutely.

Bottom posting and trimming to context is the way to do it. Anyone who
says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
Signature

Regards
Jon

mattic - 06 May 2007 01:27 GMT
> 3d&6d@woolies.com declared for all the world to hear...
>> Would you all say that top posting is a matter of life and death?
>
> Absolutely.

Bottom posting will die out because the anti-top-posting dictators will die
of stress-related illnesses while us relaxed folk who don't care will
survive and perpetuate tolerance.
David Taylor - 06 May 2007 12:36 GMT
> Would you all say that top posting is a matter of life and death?

Yes.  All top posters will eventually die.

(We bottom posters are, of course, immortal.)

Signature

David Taylor

mattic - 06 May 2007 01:27 GMT
>> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
>> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one),
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> How is that proper practice?

It's quoting the preceding conversation in each dialogue.
Note, that I did say it was taking things to their extreme logical
conclusion which always ends up being silly. I was just rebutting the other
top-posting example.
Neil - Usenet - 07 May 2007 17:00 GMT
o dear

> Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
> actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one),
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>> A: Top-posting.
>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
mattic - 07 May 2007 17:50 GMT
Well, precisely.

>o dear
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>>> A: Top-posting.
>>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
Neil - Usenet - 08 May 2007 20:35 GMT
indeed

> Well, precisely.
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>>>> A: Top-posting.
>>>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
Tim Adlam - 10 May 2007 09:23 GMT
Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
explored.

isn't there something more interesting to talk about?

tim

> indeed
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>>>>> A: Top-posting.
>>>>> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
explored.

isn't there something more interesting to talk about?

tim
Rose - 10 May 2007 10:05 GMT
> Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
> points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> tim

SEX ??????
Doh - 10 May 2007 11:02 GMT
>> Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
>> points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> SEX ??????

Do you go like it on top or bottom.
Or up the bottom?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.