On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
for me to re-type the stuff.
If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
a point. Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
intersperse or bottom-post.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
view, either in official FAQs, guides to netiquette or normal logic.
I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude, and not
one word of your opinion on the matter will change that assessment.
Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
On 8 Apr 2005 09:32:59 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
On 7 Apr 2005 21:48:57 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Given that the quotes are provided for reference (as you've already
acknowledged, above), which conventions of language does it ignore,
and in which way is it lazy?
I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
avoid all their points as you did with my other post.
It doesn't prove it whatsoever, it just shows what preference *I*
happen to have. However, it *does* speak volumes that you're trying to
claim support for your point in such a clearly false and untrue
Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were talking about top-posting, and not
the quoting part.
Proper quoting is necessary for context. You can call that "reference"
if you wish, but without quoting, who knows what on earth you're
Not everyone everywhere runs a threaded newsreader, you know.
Lazy because top-posters *rarely* trim any of the previous stuff out,
and because they can't be arsed to move the cursor to make their
Since nobody reads from bottom to top, it ignores that language
They were not germane to the discussion.
Of course it does. If top-posting were OK, then you'd just post over
what you were replying to - but since you reply BELOW the quoted text,
you obviously prefer bottom-posting.
On 8 Apr 2005 09:11:45 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
It's the way in which the sentence in the reply is formed. Remember at
school when they tried to get you to reply in complete sentences? Let
me give you an example. Someone asks the question, "where can I get a
good drill"? An answer that requires context would be "B&Q have them",
whereas a reply that doesn't require context would be "I was in B&Q
the other day, and they've got loads of drills, I'd recommend you go
Y'see the difference? That how people know "what on earth you're
Yeah, and not everyone prefers bottom posting. You can't have it both
Granted, top-posting has a propensity to create trimming issues, but
then you should realise that your beef is with trimming, not
top-posting - if that's what you want to argue.
It's not a case of not being arsed, it's a case of it not being
relevant to the style.
But a top-post *doesn't* require you to read from bottom to top does
it - the quote is there for reference, not context. The new text
placed at the top is clearly read in top down fashion, just that the
reference is supplied below - as they often are in books (as
You mean they were not germane to *your* point of view, so you snipped
them all. They were strong points which flattened your stance - hence
the snip. Perhaps I'll ask you this again, since you clearly wanted to
avoid answering it:
"Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?"
You have the strangest logic my friend! Top posting *is* OK, but that
doesn't mean it has to be my preferred style. In all walks of life,
multiple preferences exist together.
Or are you really this bigoted in real life - such that any preference
that is not your own is wrong?
Wrong, I *actually* prefer interleaved posting, not bottom posting -
as my posts clearly show.
On 7 Apr 2005 11:20:15 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
Then you'll be gutted to have used the wrong form of "it's" then?
Courtesy is accepting other people's preferences and not whining at
them about it.
Top-posting ensures that attributions remain correct in multi-level
quotes. See above where it says " email@example.com wrote",
whereupon what is quoted directly below is *not* what you wrote, it's
what someone else wrote. What you actually wrote appears many lines
further down. Top-posting eliminates this problem and therefore
renders your above claim to be untrue.
Only to those who prefer that style. People who prefer top-posting
find top-posting easier to read.
Top posts generally do not require context, but quote for reference.
Note how the one which you are whining about makes a comment about the
entire post and then quotes it for reference.
You started this one. Learn to accept more than one style of post and
don't be so lazy.
Sorry boys, I didn't mean to restart Star Wars here. But then again, while I
accept that etiquette may be an issue on a few particular occasions - not
least on those when you're invited by a member of the royalty, I am at the
same time curious as to why Microsoft does not address this with a nice
piece of software that would do all the "netiquette processing"?
Well, if you happen to strike gold in that arena, remember whose idea it was
Since when has Microsoft ever produced a 'nice piece of software'?
Outlook - particularly Express - appears to actively discourage
There are a number of mail and newsreaders around which do encourage
netiquette, by meeting the requirements of GNKSA) Good NetKeeping Seal
of Approval). The only such package, for a Windows platform, of which I
have any knowledge is Gemini -
I have been using the Messenger Pro software, which spawned Gemini, for
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')
Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
you with something to help out.
Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
Your sarcasm is noted - it is lucky for both of us that I have not
actually demanded anything. Lord help *anyone* who expresses an
opinion in usenet, huh?
Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
be totally devoted to Netiquette.
This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?
Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.
Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.
End of thread as regards me.
You're arguing with someone who will nitpick you into the mud. And once
there, easily wear you out because it is familiar territory. Like a
child always needing to get the last word in. I have concluded that for
some, slavish devotion to top posting is a measure of status in their
mind as they are the purists of usenet users. It is a geekdoom honour
thing. (notice I said "some")
Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down. By
the geekdoom code, that means he won.
I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.
Something I am different about, when writing single digits, in a
sentence, I always use the word (five) rather than the numeral (5). Not
always, such as if referencing some sort of result. A long time ago I
was taught it was proper form. The other way was lazy! This is the first
time I have ever mentioned it to anybody. And I do it not to lecture but
to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.
Good luck if you want to pursue this. Get into the spirit of it all and
wear a StarTrek uniform or something?
I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.
Oh, and Higgybaby, he still hasn't figured it out every time he drives
the red car, something bad happens to him. He is just like all of us!
Peace to all.
JP Roberts wrote:
No, Jules, I "won" before I ever posted a single word on the subject.
That you feel the need to use ad hominem comments to try and salve your
bruised ego is telling.
You see, the standards for proper posting existed before you or I ever
posted a single word in usenet. I realize that this inconvenient fact
hurts you deeply, and I can't apologize for pointing it out - facts are
facts, and they don't bow to feelings.
Etiquette in all things existed before you and I first recognized the
need to follow etiquette. Like proper queue behavior, table manners,
courteous driving, etc. Or are you one of those folks who truly
doesn't follow accepted standards of behavior? If that is the case,
then this is all moot. It would imply that you are an asshole by
choice, and no amount of education will do anything to make you polite
enough for adults.
What hilarious is that *you* keep going on, and on, and on - as though
somehow your own comments about others don't apply to yourself.
How is it rude to write "5" rather than "five"? It isn't? OK, then.
But pointing out poor grammer or speling *is* rude.
If that were only true. But it isn't. You are hurt because your
shortcomings have been pointed out in public, and you are pouting about
it. The facade of nonchalance is easily seen. What's worse, in the
face of evidence to the contrary that top-posting is acceptable, you
still seem to cling to your false ideas, because you know that you will
lose face if you suddenly started doing it the right way. Down deep,
you have that sinking feeling because you know I'm right, and you hate
it. That is why you feel the need to attack me personally, rather than
attempt an air-tight logical construct to prove your own point.
Oh, and hey - after a while of have a rude, lazy and selfish posting
style, folks will just killfile you or ignore your posts. Thus making
usenet sort of pointless for you. Good luck with that.
E.P. (Ignoring Jules' posts henceforth)
On 11 Apr 2005 10:22:44 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Oh gawd... I might have known...
I don't think I'd lose much sleep about losing the readership of the
sorts of braniacs that can't figure out more than one style of post
and who choose to killfile people rather than figure it out...
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.