Re: top-posting: both appropriate and inappropriate

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

> newbie's make ignorant mistakes

Oh! The irony...


--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 24 Oct 2007 18:07:22 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>> top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate...
>
>
> While we're on the topic of "illiterate," what does ignoring basic
> English rules of capitalization say about someone?

Usenet was started by unix nerds. unix nerds don't capitalize. That's
tradition.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

In article <1i6kc0d.1r4hpi2glhw2eN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > newbie's make ignorant mistakes
>
> Oh! The irony...

Now, that was funny.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

ByTor wrote:
> In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
>
>> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
>>
>>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.

Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
you can shove it on the bottom?

In article <5od8ncFm3kcrU1@mid.individual.net>,
PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...

> ByTor wrote:
> > In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> > elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
> >
> >> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
> >>
> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>
> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
> you can shove it on the bottom?

I guess that would be kinda funny eh........

Well as I only asked a question, innocently, maybe I should throw in a
sort of explanation.

When a thread is added on, yes some do keep the content without
snipping. The *whole* dialogue, in case I missed the first OP, I find,
can be read much easier on who is replying to who reading from the top
down rather than the bottom up. Now in the case of a top poster, very
very small population of **newsgroups**, it throws the thread off. I
don't care either way cus I will continue to do what appears to be the
*predominant* way of posting in the NG's. This is not an email group, or
a mailbox. I only show the respect of what is **more** consistently
done. In a way it's being a positive conformist and I respect the
**predominant** method. If people wanna do it *different* go right
ahead. I've been in NG's a loooooooong time and bottom posting takes the
cake so to speak. It's almost the same as idiots posting MTK to binary
newsgroups, get with the times.

But as I said, I don't care either way & won't spend my life arguing it.
The above is my opinion on my take on the situation. I could give a rats
ass how people post. Personally, I ignore top posters because its a pain
in the ass for me and I don't want to be bothered with fixing the thread
when I reply. Many many requests & conversations I ignore because of it
when I'm involved with binary groups.

ByTor wrote:
> PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...
>> ByTor wrote:
>> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>>
>> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
>> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
>> you can shove it on the bottom?
>
> I guess that would be kinda funny eh........

When you get on a horse, do you get on from the top or bottom? Neither!
You get on from the side! So side-posting is the way to go. Except that
when you go into orbit, do you approach the orbit from above or below?
And when popcorn pops, is it the top kernels or the bottom kernels that
pop first?

What the hell does any of this, especially putting letters in mailboxes,
have to do with top-posting?

Top posting started when Microsoft made their stupid broken news software
and people were too lazy to do a couple of extra clicks to circumvent the
brokenness. It's that simple.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

In article <8dg9v4-05c.ln1@remote.clifto.com>,
clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

> ByTor wrote:
> > PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...
> >> ByTor wrote:
> >> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
> >>
> >> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
> >> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
> >> you can shove it on the bottom?
> >
> > I guess that would be kinda funny eh........
>
> When you get on a horse, do you get on from the top or bottom? Neither!
> You get on from the side! So side-posting is the way to go. Except that
> when you go into orbit, do you approach the orbit from above or below?
> And when popcorn pops, is it the top kernels or the bottom kernels that
> pop first?
>
> What the hell does any of this, especially putting letters in mailboxes,
> have to do with top-posting?
>
> Top posting started when Microsoft made their stupid broken news software
> and people were too lazy to do a couple of extra clicks to circumvent the
> brokenness. It's that simple.


yes it is. making matters worse, internet access was expanding
exponentially at that time and scads of illiterates, both in general
and usenet-illiterates discovered the internet and had no one to
mentor them.

even then, most were sufficiently wise to stop top posting as soon as
someone explained it to them.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight over
how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?

And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume for
the Trekkie convention?

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
> In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>
>> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >
>> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >
>> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> *****ing incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> asshole.
>> >
>> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> > evaluation.
>> >>
>> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted
>> >> and
>> >> close-minded.
>> >
>> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >
>> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> pretentious
>> >> jerk.
>> >
>> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> > jerk?"
>> >
>> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >
>>
>> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> prick
>> know it all.
>
> don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
> perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>
>> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> someone's
>> posting method until
>
> which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>
> run along.
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>

*illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*

In article
<vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >>
> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> >> >> > ignorant.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> *****ing incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
> >> >> asshole.
> >> >
> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
> >> > evaluation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted
> >> >> and
> >> >> close-minded.
> >> >
> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
> >> >
> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
> >> >> pretentious
> >> >> jerk.
> >> >
> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
> >> > jerk?"
> >> >
> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
> >> prick
> >> know it all.
> >
> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
> >
> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
> >> someone's
> >> posting method until
> >
> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
> >
> > run along.
>
> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight over
> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>
> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume for
> the Trekkie convention?

thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

In article <YrydnZI86t0cV4HanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ness Net
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> hh = Another sanctimonious know it all....
>
> Do YOU actually bottom 'post' your business e-mail?

How did you figure any of this is about e-mail?
How did business communication get into this? (Where, incidentally, it
is even more critical to follow instructions, and everyone who doesn't
gets ignored or refused.)

> I know of no place of business where this is acceptable.
> It just isn't done in business - period. It certainly would be
> considered illiterate in ANY business environment.
And failure to follow instructions, and junk, and someone would be
reprimanded. But again, this is a newsgroup requirement, made standard
even though fully aware of the other situations.
For a very good reason.
There are more people contributing to the discussion, time is longer,
and readers might enter the discussion at any point.

> Usenet - with proper trimming - who cares?
> (just sanctimonious know it alls I guess)
>
> The rest of this 'discussion' is just small minded crap.
> So easy to hurl insults...

No, you're still missing the point.
It's about making YOUR messages readable. Other people are doing fine
-- but if your message doesn't comply, it may not make any sense
(because yours is out of sequence) or it might just be ignored.
Getting angry at others because there are rules doesn't help, either.
There are rules -- you know it, you just noted some. Get over the idea
that you think there is another way to do it. Unless it's superior to
the standard way, you need to keep quiet.

And again, foloowing the rule means you might get read more, and it
will CERTAINLY make more sense when you do. Why fight that?

Out of sequence? My news reader threads the messages. Every
message is always in sequence. If I want to see what is being replied
to, I just move up the thread. That way I see the complete message that
was replied to, with out any editing by the new poster.
If when I open a message, all I see are quotes because the new
message is off the screen at the bottom, then I move on to the next
unread message.

What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
dictionary and who posts where?

Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-B10A96.18032526102007@individual.net...
> *illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*
>
> In article
> <vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> >>
>> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *****ing incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> >> asshole.
>> >> >
>> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> >> > evaluation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is
>> >> >> shortsighted
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> close-minded.
>> >> >
>> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> >> pretentious
>> >> >> jerk.
>> >> >
>> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> >> > jerk?"
>> >> >
>> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> >> prick
>> >> know it all.
>> >
>> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
>> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>> >
>> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> >> someone's
>> >> posting method until
>> >
>> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>> >
>> > run along.
>>
>> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight
>> over
>> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>>
>> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
>> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume
>> for
>> the Trekkie convention?
>
> thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>

In article <OHlVi.33147$kj1.50@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:

> What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
> basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
> dictionary and who posts where?
>
> Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!
>
>
Hmm, another guy obsessing about the thought of a guy living in his
mother's basement.
What is it with this group?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Ness Net wrote:
> hh = Another sanctimonious know it all....
>
> Do YOU actually bottom 'post' your business e-mail?
>
> I know of no place of business where this is acceptable.
> It just isn't done in business - period. It certainly would be
> considered illiterate in ANY business environment.

While I bottom post because top-posting tends to upset a lot of
high-maintenance Usenet users, it is true that it's totally illogical
and is unacceptable in business e-mail correspondence where efficiency
is valued. Having to scroll down to the bottom to see the most recent
response to an e-mail would be very strange.

Look at the editing history of something like a Wikipedia article, and
of course the most recent contribution information is at the top, not
the bottom. Same with nearly all blogs, the most recent stuff is at the
top. It would seem like the Linux community would be especially in favor
of top posting, as it makes so much more sense, and is so much more
efficient.

SMS ???? ? wrote:
> While I bottom post because top-posting tends to upset a lot of
> high-maintenance Usenet users, it is true that it's totally illogical
> and is unacceptable in business e-mail correspondence where efficiency
> is valued. Having to scroll down to the bottom to see the most recent
> response to an e-mail would be very strange.

That's why you're supposed to trim quotes.

I display full headers on Usenet articles. In your case that was 25 lines
before the article body, and I still didn't have to scroll to see any part
of your article. That's because you posted well; trimmed quotes preceding
original content.

> Look at the editing history of something like a Wikipedia article, and
> of course the most recent contribution information is at the top, not
> the bottom. Same with nearly all blogs, the most recent stuff is at the
> top.

Blogs are collections of stories that are only marginally related, unlike
e-mail or Usenet articles which are collections of strongly related parts
of a single conversation.

> It would seem like the Linux community would be especially in favor
> of top posting, as it makes so much more sense, and is so much more
> efficient.

..backwards everything puts only It

--
Angry American flags attack Hillary Clinton!