Understand that the decline of the US car companies gives me no
pleasure. They largely did it to themselves, though, with their
crappy quality (which gave the Japanese their opening to invade), to
their embracing of mediocrity, the most glaring example of which was
the wholesale switch-over to FWD. It was really sad to see once-proud
Cadillac producing nothing but garbage with V8 engines hanging-out in
front of the front wheels...
Top posting is actually the superior method. Having to continually
scroll down to the end of the message, every message, is wasteful. It
is wasteful because the context of the quoted text is often not
actually necessary, due to a high probability that the message
containing it was just or recently read by the viewer.
It is most especially gay, for those who additionally re-quote
practically the entire thread thus far in every stinking message
rather than just the more relevant bits necessary for context. Not
only does it waste storage and bandwidth, it amplifies the tragedy of
the bottom posting method as pointed out above. If one wants to see
the all messages in the thread, it is but a relatively simple matter
to browse through the posts and replies in the thread with their news
reader, or web news reader like Google or what have you. If that is
too much of a challenge, then who are the real idiots?
In the cases that the context is needed, the viewer can scroll down to
obtain it. But only when they need to. Efficiency. Beauty.
I'm not usually one to make an issue out of people's posting style. I
like top posting for the reasons given, but recognize that others may
place higher value on other aspects of trade offs. But I do not like
when someone gets on their top posting is bad high horse like you have
been doing. And even though you were directing your comments directly
to someone else, the fact that I often top post caused me to feel
insulted. Thus I felt compelled to weigh in on it.
And by the way, relating to the primary issue at hand here; if you
think that being able to buy a vehicle that is close or closer to
"just right" is not a factor in value, then to put it bluntly you are
playing a fool. It is generally common understanding that value
equals what you get, weighed against the cost. The "just right"
concept is most definitely an important issue in the what you get part
of the equation.
Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In
normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not
yet been said.
When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers
to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what
the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make
the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better
There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting
severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the
context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken.
Replying at the top confuses your readers, making any point you're trying to
get across very unclear without them scrolling down and back repeatedly,
searching to re-integrate context. That extra, wholly unnecessary work leads
to reader irritation, or worse, to readers just not bothering with your
words at all.
Since your object is to get your message across, help your readers follow by
placing your words in context, not prior to the context. Doing otherwise,
forcing your readers to go to extra work unnecessarily, is often irritating,
sometimes interpreted as insulting, or in severe cases taken as attempt by
you to show your "power". Any way you cut that, delivering your words in an
hard to read manner doesn't help your case. Instead, post in-line to
preserve context and respect your readers.
Top-posting means replying to a message above the original message. This may
be a message in an Internet forum, an e-mail message or a Usenet post.
Top-posting is considered improper by many definitions of Internet etiquette
since it breaks down the flow of the thread:
Top-posting vs bottom-posting
Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it the other
way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates about which
posting style is better have lead to many flame wars in the forums. To keep
forum discussion friendly, please follow the general preference, which is
Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
~text that I'm sure SgtSillycon didn't read, snipped~
Some people just won't let facts, convention or common sense get in the way
of doing things *their* way.
If the posters that follow convention would ignore or KF those that refuse
to, they might see the error of their ways.
I agree with another poster that people that don't trim their posts are just
as bad as top posters.
The first thing I did when I read your follow up was to scroll down
past all the quoted stuff because I ALREADY AM FOLLOWING THE THREAD.
If, and ONLY if, It's not making sense, then I will quick check the
quoted. Most of the time, probably 90%+, I just recently finished
reading the quoted material in its original posting and I do not need
to read any of it. I do not need to re-read it every time someone
throws in 2 cents. See another posting I have made regarding so
called self appointed preachers of what is netiquette.
I think bottom posters are idiots, because the quoted text is not
always needed to the reader. It is not needed when it was just read
in a previous message. I do not think of people as having so
incredibly poor reading comprehension skills that they completely
forget the messages they just read in the few minutes previously. For
those that do for get one, it is then an easy matter to scroll down.
I do check the quoted when I need to. Most of the time I have already
recently read it. I notice you have no comment about re-quoting
EVERYTHING rather than just the bits needed for context. You don't
see any problem with that? Anything lazy with it? Anything wasteful
I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact
(i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US)
versus non debtor nation (Japan), manufacturer country of origin,
real estate property tax abatement for non domestic manufacturers,
rice steel versus real steel, rice glass versus real glass, when will the
Japanese call in our debt) from opinion (i.e., GM, Ford and Chrysler
designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of
vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa.
Why isn't Treasury's own site more up-to-date? Since January, estimates are
that we're giving the Chinese an extra $30 billion per month. Not all of
that will be in t-bills, of course.
This is in the Washington Post:
The Washington Post
China Set to Reduce Exposure to Dollar
Move Would Probably Push Currency Down
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
SHANGHAI, Jan. 9 -- China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange
reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and
into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the
greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic
policymakers said in an interview Monday.
Why do all the Bush haters always see what they perceive to be the negative
side of every issue? Chinas purpose is to reinforce its controlled currency
which is over inflated, by slowing the GROWTH.of the dollar. ;)
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.