I don't know anything about you, beyond this thread, but it is
absolutely amazing to me that you come across like a 15-year old who
read somewhere that botttom-posting is the only acceptable way to do it,
and you're going to carry your banner all over the usenet.
Honestly, you don't like what I say because I re: on top.... killfile
It's a stupid argument, where you feel your way is the only.
You don't know anything about who, top poster? Oh, I see, you want us
all to read down into the post to see who are are talking about, and
then go back to the top to try and make sense of your post.
How ironic, coming from the person too lazy and selfish to properly
format his post to maximize the quality of discussion. How VERY
ironic, from the person who just wants to rant-away at the top, while
ignoring all the points of the previous poster.
Wrong again, top-poster. It was immediately obvious to me that "quote
and reply" is the ONLY way to have a quality discussion, and that only
lazy, selfish idiots think that top-posting is superior.
"Oh dear, I don't want to scroll down." Umm... That's why proper
trimming is performed. Just because some "bottom posters" are too
lazy to trim does not mean that we should all abandon any hope of
quality, point-by-point discussions and start ranting-away at the top.
The fact that you top-post is strong evidence that you have nothing of
value lend to the discussion, no doubt.
It is the only correct way. Only idiots think that top-posting is the
I didn't have to scroll down to figure out who he's referring to. If you are
following the thread, (which I figure you're to stupid to do), you don't
need to scroll down to figure out the progression of the thread.
Only idiots think that top posting is superior. You are an idiot, and
are unqualified to pass judgement on those of use with brains.
Top posting is inferior for a number of reasons as I have already
provided. Learn how to read, you top-posting moron.
P.S. At least leave a blank line between your post and the one that
(unfortunately) follows, cretin.
It has nothing to do with his way. You should look in the mirror, you look
like the stupid teenager who thinks walking in the lane of traffic is cool
and he will make the cars swerve to avoid him all 130 pounds of him against
a 8000 pounds of pickup... Like these disruptive immature kids, you are
trying to defy normal convention. Who do you really think "comes across
like a 15-year old"?
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.
For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top
posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE!
Top posting is not incomprehensible because the content was often
recently read in a previous message. The only people it might be
tough for are those who do NOT FOLLOW THREADS. If you are one of
those people, I suggest you start following posts by thread 1st and
not by time stamp 1st.
I think I see at least part of the problem here, displayed more
obviously by ditszy than your post.
I understand and certainly respect your desire to post at the bottom...
I still contend it's more labor intensive and wasteful and I choose to
not do it that way. I believe my way is better. :)
However, it's not an all or nothing proposition. when the topic is
complex enough and there are multiple things to address, I will clip out
and insert text after the relevant discussion (just like this).
However, self-richeous bottom posters who repost days and days worth of
quoted text only to provide 1 thought at the bottom is my specific beef
with the topic.
Big deal. Net etiquette can and does change daily as companies change
and modify their approach and attempt to make their 'mark' on the
internet. my preference to top post single replies is choice.
Besides, to quote carlos mencia "i didn't get the f****** memo." with
the nettiquette rules I had to follow! ;)
I am not a Usenet historian but I wonder if bottom posting had something to
do with relative primitive editing and low bandwidth issues early on in the
game. I for one prefer to read top posting in almost every case since I have
usually been following the thread and don't want to scroll down pages of
comment I have already read. Just imagine how long a single post on this
thread would be with everyone bottom posting. And if you are going to
heavily edit previous comments you might as well top post and let the reader
go back in the thread as needed. I do appreciate specific comments inserted,
where appropriate, in a reply.
Since this has become a formatting thread I do have a question. Many of my
posts have weird line breaks when they show up on usenet. I am using Outlook
express, plain text, Western European (ISO)
Bottom posting is actually the correct form for usenet posting.
See RFC 1855. Section 3.1.1
"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews"
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving
context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!"
Top posting was "innovated" by Microsoft when they ignored this (among many
other) internet standards.
Posting should follow normal written text (top to bottom) this makes
searching the answer to a question possible. You may be searching for
something years later and find a thread and need to have it readable.
No. Top-posting is an inferior way to format a post. Bandwidth is
That is why posts should be trimmed of the parts no longer being
actively discussed. There usually should NOT be any large amount of
scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my
posts, for examples.
Top posting is SUPERIOR. Bandwidth IS relevant, and so is the idiocy
of not trimming quotes.
I have a simple questions for you and other bottom post supporters.
1. Do you agree that reading quoted material is not always needled as
it might have just been recently read in its original post?
2. Do you agree that bottom posting will force a reader to scroll past
the quoted EACH and EVERY time in order to just be able to read the
new material? Barring of course situations where all is visible one
3. Do you agree that IF, the reader does not find it necessary to
re-read the quoted material, then having to navigate past it in a
bottom posting environment is wasteful?
4. In a top posting environment, If the reader DOES find it necessary
to reference the quoted material, do you agree that the effort to do
so is similar to the efforts described in #3 above?
5. Since most posts do not fit in a single viewing pane, isn't it
obvious that bottom posting will require the reader to scroll on
almost every message, whereas top postings only require it when
context is not already understood?
6. Is not a system which requires less effort to achieve the goal the
more efficient system?
No, it is not, in regards to the the best way to format a post.
Not trimming can be bad, too.
Your use of "not always needed" shows the dishonesty and illogic of
Of course it's "not always needed". But it IS almost always better.
"Interleaved" posting, like this, is the correct way.
A properly-trimmed post will not have you "scrolling" to get to the
Why do you keep saying "bottom posting", as if the alternative to
posting everything on top is posting everything on the bottom?
In any case, no. Keeping some context is a GOOD THING, so can hardly
be called "wasteful".
What's "wasteful" is how top posters almost NEVER trim their posts.
Not even close. A properly formatted post, like this one, is of
vastly higher-quality, and is more easily understood, compared to
successive blocks of text as are left by stupid top-posters.
Are you mentally retarded? This has already been explained (see the
very last paragraph of this post).
Making it a REAL pain, jumping down and up to try to comprehend a top
The most efficient system is that where the poster properly formats
and trims his response to maximize quality of communication. The
extra effort by the one person then benefits the MANY who will read
I think DIZZY is correct it is not that hard to read all of the other posts,
when they are posted often enough
but then again if I had posted on the top you would most likely be reading
the next message by now
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.