RE: Top posting (Was: cell phone use in hospitals)

The following is a direct quote from the first paragraph of your reference
which is a bit dated. So I ask again, what set the standard??

"Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited."


"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tee Box wrote:
>>
>> So what committee set the standard that says you can't top post like I
>> am.
>
> Have a look at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html.
>
> Notan

---

› See More: RE: Top posting (Was: cell phone use in hospitals)

In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Cowles <[email protected]> wrote:
>But, in following a thread, one needs only read the top on each subsequent
>message, rather than scrolling to the bottom of a huge mess. Assuming the
>writer edits the original, I prefer top posts.
>
>"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
>>>There's nothing inherintly wrong with it
>>
>> Other than the fact that one has to read from the bottom up.
>
>


A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon -->[email protected]<-- brian.gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

[email protected] (Brian Gordon) wrote:

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

You just answered your own question. Top or bottom would work equally well
to maintain the order of responses, but when the two are mixed, all order is
lost. Therefore, a standard had to be agreed upon. It was agreed upon over
20 years ago, and like it or not, that standard is bottom posting.

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:50:59 -0500, "Tee Box" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>So what committee set the standard that says you can't top post like I am.

None. If you want to top post go ahead and you can post and dump like
most top posters do. Likewise we can killfile you as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:49:55 GMT, "W4PHM" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I am just not a purist to archaine rules.

And you probably haven't a clue as to why those rules were put there
in the first place as well. Do you also think that Microsoft invented
the internet as well?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I presume you're aware that the news client in Outlook Express
>> (which comes installed on 95% of all personal computers) defaults to
>> top posting. Microsoft is not exactly a lightweight when it comes to
>> computing standards.
>
>
> Great- yet another top-posting thread. The amusing thing about this last
> post- the author points to Microsoft and computing standards (which he
> sounds like he would follow). But when presented with the actual standard
> for Usenet, the philosophy becomes, "I'm too good (or too lazy) to do that."
> Shouldn't have tried to justify your top-posting- it makes you look a little
> less intelligent.

Standards are not set in concrete. Conventions evolve over time.
Take a look at the Microsoft newsgroups on the NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com.
More than 90% of the posts there are top-posted, and it works out
quite well. The posters are typically system administrators and long-time
computer experts, who, (like myself) were online long before there was a
World-Wide Web. There is no need to question the intelligence of those
who prefer to top-post.

--
John Richards

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:18:35 GMT, "John Richards"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Standards are not set in concrete. Conventions evolve over time.
>Take a look at the Microsoft newsgroups on the NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com.
>More than 90% of the posts there are top-posted, and it works out
>quite well. The posters are typically system administrators and long-time
>computer experts, who, (like myself) were online long before there was a
>World-Wide Web. There is no need to question the intelligence of those
>who prefer to top-post.

Hmmm, this is hard to comprehend. A Microsoft news group where they
all top post using no doubt Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express which
by default top posts. That's truly odd (NOT!)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:25:59 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]>
said in alt.cellular:

>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:49:55 GMT, "W4PHM" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I am just not a purist to archaine rules.
>
>And you probably haven't a clue as to why those rules were put there
>in the first place as well. Do you also think that Microsoft invented
>the internet as well?

Not unless Al Gore was working for them when he invented it.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:18:35 GMT, "John Richards"
<[email protected]> said in alt.cellular:

>Take a look at the Microsoft newsgroups on the NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com.
>More than 90% of the posts there are top-posted

Good argument - against top posting.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:18:35 GMT, "John Richards"
> <[email protected]> said in alt.cellular:
>
>>Take a look at the Microsoft newsgroups on the NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com.
>>More than 90% of the posts there are top-posted
>
> Good argument - against top posting.

Guess you missed reading the part where I said it was working out
well for them, and that they're not clueless newbies.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Standards are not set in concrete.

True, but when presented with the standards that well over half post here
with, you took the attitude of ,"f*** them all, I'll do what I want." Very
poor etiquette and it shows a lack of consideration.

>Conventions evolve over time.

No they don't. We are a lazy society and tend to leave well enough alone.

> Take a look at the Microsoft newsgroups on the NNTP server
msnews.microsoft.com.
> More than 90% of the posts there are top-posted, and it works out
> quite well. The posters are typically system administrators and long-time
> computer experts, who, (like myself) were online long before there was a
> World-Wide Web.

I would tend to describe them a little differently- they are responsible for
more system and network screwups in a day than the newbies because of their
self-inflated egos and illusions of grandeur. You'll also have to explain
to me one other part- how did these twenty and thirty-something system
admins get on a computer for the WWW?

>There is no need to question the intelligence of those
> who prefer to top-post.

Reread my post- I didn't question anyone's intelligence. I merely pointed
out that your example tended to make you look less intelligent. Your latest
argument had done nothing to change that.


>
> --
> John Richards

From that link:

"...
Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind...."

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tee Box wrote:
>>
>> So what committee set the standard that says you can't top post like I
>> am.
>
> Have a look at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html.
>
> Notan

Chris Cowles wrote:

> From that link:
>
> "...
> Status of This Memo
>
> This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
> does not specify an Internet standard of any kind...."
>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Tee Box wrote:
>>
>>>So what committee set the standard that says you can't top post like I
>>>am.
>>
>>Have a look at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html.
>>
>>Notan

It is far from unusual to have an RFC make that comment, and it is
equally far from unusal for the internet community to ignore the RFC.

More to the point, the rationale is precisely on point: trim the
quotes and THEN say your piece. Context is thereby provided which can
be sorely lacking otherwise, particularly in newsgroups which get
hundreds of posts daily.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:33:53 GMT, "John Richards"
<[email protected]> said in alt.cellular:

>"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:18:35 GMT, "John Richards"
>> <[email protected]> said in alt.cellular:

>>>Take a look at the Microsoft newsgroups on the NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com.
>>>More than 90% of the posts there are top-posted

>> Good argument - against top posting.

>Guess you missed reading the part where I said it was working out
>well for them, and that they're not clueless newbies.

I saw it. If MS "sets a standard", that's a good reason to think that
there's at least one flaw with the "standard". Anything they set.
Just look at their "flavor of the week" OSs. Windows ME, anyone?

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:44:10 -0500, "Chris Cowles" <[email protected]> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>But, in following a thread, one needs only read the top on each subsequent
>message, rather than scrolling to the bottom of a huge mess. Assuming the
>writer edits the original, I prefer top posts.
>
>"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
>>>There's nothing inherintly wrong with it
>>
>> Other than the fact that one has to read from the bottom up.

But since this thread had jumped around so much and grown so many different
branches, I had to go to the bottom to see what you were replying to before
your post made sense to me.

P.S. I deliberately did not move what you said to the bottom of the quoted
text as an example of why top- and bottom-posting are incompatible.

P.P.S. To whoever it is who keeps mentioning fitting on one screen, not all
screens are the same and the examples you are citing of fitting on one
screen don't in my reader.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"[B]each goat bladder has been accepted as an Olympic sport for the 2008
Games, along with ballroom dancing, lawn darts, bathroom remodeling and Go
Fish." - Dave Barry