There are laws proscribed for driving on public roadways. Individual
preference is the rule here. Is that the best you can do? It's
I disagree. I think it is very comprehensible for most people most of
the time, and in the times it isn't, the option is there to quick
scroll down to check the context. That's my comment on the subjective
point. Objectively you also are factually wrong about the not having
yet been said. It HAS been said. That's how it was able to be quoted
in the 1st place you doof!
It's as if you have this mental barrier that you just can't get past,
that each posting stands alone. And as such, each posting must start
off with (at the top) all previous parts of the discussion. Then the
reader needs to read a complete history of all postings on the subject
before reading a bit of new material. Then, when the reader goes to
the next message in the thread (immediately after they read this one)
they should do it all over again in the next message, because hey,
after all, each message has to stand all alone right? NOT! In
usenet, postings are part of a thread. I'll give you a big hint to
help your problem. Stop doing primary sorting by date, and start
organizing by thread 1st. It's the smart way to do it, regardless
what posting styles are being used.
You can adopt the sheep mentality if you like. I think for myself. I
wish you could "observe" my middle finger about now.
Funny, I hardly ever have a problem with that. You really need to
primarily start organizing your reading by thread, not date.
Opinion. One I disagree with. You don't seem to have too much
trouble responding to my posts. Honestly now, are you claiming it is
too hard to scroll down to scan the context if needed, but it isn't a
big deal to have to do the scrolling to get to the fresh material each
and every time? If so that is soooo illogical.
Sure there is. Maybe you should better learn how to use a news reader
It's right below new material! If you consider that a hard nut to
crack, then I guess I'm starting to realize what I'm dealing with
Sigh. Can you say "bahh"? There is plenty of support for top posting
too. I prefer to debate my stance on my own. There once was a man
named Copernicus who suggested it was wise to understand that the
earth and other planets revolved around the sun. Convention said that
no, everything rotated around the earth. Oh the great ones that were
quoted, even the great Aristotle and others. And yet even so,
Calumnious was right; convention was wrong.
Nope. It not only prevents quality, point-by-point discussion, but if
often multiplies the effort of reading and understanding a post,
because one must scroll-down into the post to see what is being
responded to, and then back up to the top to read the response.
It's obviously less effort than properly formatting and trimming your
response as I am doing. This is not really "top vs. bottom" so much
as "right vs. wrong". There's no way a top post can match the quality
of communication of an interleaved post like this one.
Those who don't properly trim are indeed lazy, as you say. However,
they are not "the lazy ones" - they are only a subset of the lazy
So you claim that top posters are the lazy ones, then claim that those
who do not cull their quoted material are lazy but only as a subset of
the true lazy ones. That means you are saying that bottom posters
never fail to properly cull their quoted material, or it means you are
saying that if they do fail we shouldn't label them lazy. Are you
daft sir? Is not there mountains of evidence of bottom posting full
quoting idiots even here in this very newsgroup?
Do you also drive on what ever side of the road you feel like regardless of
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!
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
Regarding top posting, it violates nothing of the sort. Just because
some self important jack-ass wrote a document and claimed it to be
proper netiquette doesn't make it so. You need the context, you
scroll down. If it's not the kind of message that requires context or
you already got the context from the just previous message you read,
then you don't need to scroll.
Long before usenet there were the BBSs. In that era, the ratio of
hard core skilled computer people using such services was much higher
than today. Message bases were almost exclusively top posted because
it was all but universally recognized as the obvious way to go. Then
comes the popularity of the internet. Some lame ass Johnny come
friggin lately, who needs his dick held while he re-reads every
stinking bit of a thread right before a new bit, decides to write down
preferences and label them as if they were handed down from on high
like the ten commandments or something. Then desciples like you
preach the gospel as if it were holy writ. It isn't. Never was.
Never will be.
I'm someone who's been doing this crap since like 1982 on my own
300bps (also baud at that time) modem. I say this not to imply any
kind of superiority in knowing what is best here, but to point out
that I know how these cheese whiz wankers came along later and thought
they would pretend to show all the new netzeins the "enlightened"
ways. You've been led by false prophets. Believe it or not believe
it it's up to you. It's time people open their eyes.
I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including
EVERY iteration of the conversation ad-infinitiuum.
Honestly, if someone wants to post a reply at the bottom, I certainly
respect their option to do so...
However, please at least be curtious enough to cut out the chaff so I
don't have page upon page to scroll through to get to somebody's 1-line
response. THAT is what makes it hard to understand the context.
email@example.com (SgtSilicon) wrote in wrote:
No, only illogical nonsense has been provided - the same wrong-headed
nonsense I've read a hundred times from lazy, stupid, selfish,
top-posting idiots trying to defend their lazy, stupid, selfish ways.
"It's easier for me, fuck everyone else."
It does give me the right to put my post at the top, where people can read
it quickly and move on.
You can insult as much as you want, but I've been online for many years,
and I've never thought the 'bottom post' was a better way of doing it.
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.
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.