Re: top-posting: both appropriate and inappropriate

> On Oct 23, 8:55 pm, "Ness_net" <rich...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com>
> wrote:
> > "Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> >
> > news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710231759270.420@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU...
> >
> > > What *is* silly is the endless flaming about it. It is far more annoying to read flames about inappropriate
> > > top-posting than it is to encounter inappropriate top-posting.
> >
> > > -- Mark --
> >
> > I'll put it in context.
> >
> > I have NEVER *****ed about someone bottom posting...
> > Live and let live. I really don't care - I HAVE a life...
> >
> > The self righteous know it alls DO tend to bug the crap out of me.
> > The dismissive "must be new or illiterate" garbage is so annoying.
> >
> > Who the hell appointed them hall monitor...?

In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com says...

> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
> I can see good and bad points in all of the methods. I would think
> that for most people, like myself that are not 'usenet gurus', that
> top posting would seem more natural, as it is more akin to the way
> replying to an email is.
>
> One question though.... Does anyone reading this, or the last 50 or so
> posts know what the original topic was? Just checking... I think it
> was about the i-phone, and them allowing 3rd party applications now.
> Not really sure what that has to do with top posting, or for that
> matter why it is even posted in alt.cellular.sprintpcs, which is what
> I subscribed to, but who am I to complain? :-)

When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.

At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:

> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.


No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
the same content of every page before it!

Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
line pearl of wisdom.

So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?

Ness_net wrote:
>
> Who the hell appointed them hall monitor...?

Obviously Bush.... From other posts it seems everything else is his fault,
so why not this too?

In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.


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.

--
"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

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?

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.
>
>
> No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
> the same content of every page before it!
>
> Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
> topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
> to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
> line pearl of wisdom.
>
> So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?
>
>

Eh dickhead, it was just a simple question, was there need fer the
sarcasm. And truth of the matter is I wasn't even replying to you now
was I? I think you're taking this way too seriously and need a break.

And don't tell me how to post asshole.

In article <L6RTi.607$mg.225@fe093.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> 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?


it says they have been in usenet newsgroups for a very long time, for
one.

--
"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

"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message news:MlRTi.1479$lh.904@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> In article <9AJTi.593$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.
>>
>>
>> No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
>> the same content of every page before it!
>>
>> Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
>> topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
>> to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
>> line pearl of wisdom.
>>
>> So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?
>>
>>
>
> Eh dickhead, it was just a simple question, was there need fer the
> sarcasm. And truth of the matter is I wasn't even replying to you now
> was I? I think you're taking this way too seriously and need a break.
>
> And don't tell me how to post asshole.

You make the point I have been trying to.

"Don't tell me how to post"

EXACTLY!!!!!

This know it all, pretentious bull**** attitude is highly irritating.

My advice?? STFU if 'ya ain't got something to actually say

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgkeegan-DF4159.18072224102007@individual.net...
> In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
>> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
>
>
> 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.

Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted and close-minded.

Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a pretentious jerk.

In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-DF4159.18072224102007@individual.net...
> > In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> > dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
> >> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
> >
> >
> > 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?

--
"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

"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.

YOU now take it down to the level of a 4 yr old playground spat - he said - no HE said....

The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on someone's
posting method until (whomever) attacked and made themselves a large PITA.

Defense vs offence - there IS a BIG difference. And it is always the same.
I have NEVER seen someone ***** about bottom posting - NEVER.

Copping an attitude of 'you are illiterate and ignorant if' is textbook net jerk.

ANY neutral party can certainly see just whom is being an ass in all of this.

And... it isn't me.

Buh Bye now - you can't play nice, so the playground is closed.

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

At 24 Oct 2007 20:31:19 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> it says they have been in usenet newsgroups for a very long time, for
> one.

Yeah, I know, you've been posting since it used to be done with batch
cards, blah, blah.

I just appreciate the irony that the top-post police, who claim top-
posting is a crime because it runs afoul of the "natural way we read"
think typing in all lower-case doesn't interfere with readabilty. Guess
what- it does. Decades of reading the written word makes the abandonment
of grammatical rules jarring and akward. It's 2007- ASCII includes both
kinds of letters these days.

In reality the two are intertwined in a way- the bottom-posting
preference has nothing to do with readability, it's just a long-standing
tradition, and "old-timers" abhor nothing as much as a newbie, or those
they perceive as a newbie.

I generally bottom-post because I always have, but top-posting certainly
doesn't offend me. A smart top-post beats a stupid bottom-post any day
of the week.

In article <OPidnUTeQLeCd4LanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@giganews.com>,
richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com says...
>
> "ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message news:MlRTi.1479$lh.904@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> > In article <9AJTi.593$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.
> >>
> >>
> >> No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
> >> the same content of every page before it!
> >>
> >> Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
> >> topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
> >> to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
> >> line pearl of wisdom.
> >>
> >> So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Eh dickhead, it was just a simple question, was there need fer the
> > sarcasm. And truth of the matter is I wasn't even replying to you now
> > was I? I think you're taking this way too seriously and need a break.
> >
> > And don't tell me how to post asshole.
>
> You make the point I have been trying to.
>
> "Don't tell me how to post"
>
> EXACTLY!!!!!
>
> This know it all, pretentious bull**** attitude is highly irritating.
>
> My advice?? STFU if 'ya ain't got something to actually say

Oh I'm used to the morons trust me.....Try taking a look in the binary
newsgroups and all the critics & control freaks that try & *teach*
proper posting.....LOL

In article <duWTi.751$Ig.676@fe117.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 24 Oct 2007 20:31:19 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > it says they have been in usenet newsgroups for a very long time, for
> > one.
>
> Yeah, I know, you've been posting since it used to be done with batch
> cards, blah, blah.
>
> I just appreciate the irony that the top-post police, who claim top-
> posting is a crime because it runs afoul of the "natural way we read"
> think typing in all lower-case doesn't interfere with readabilty.


some people may think that. others know it.


> Guess what- it does.

your assertion, unsupported, doesn't mean very much.


> Decades of reading the written word makes the abandonment
> of grammatical rules jarring and akward. It's 2007- ASCII includes both
> kinds of letters these days.


your opinion is not support.


> In reality the two are intertwined in a way- the bottom-posting
> preference has nothing to do with readability, it's just a long-standing
> tradition, and "old-timers" abhor nothing as much as a newbie, or those
> they perceive as a newbie.

newbie's make ignorant mistakes that are easily corrected. that's not
so bad.

obstinately ignorant people continue to make mistakes which they know
are mistakes.

--
"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