Re: Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

Keep laughing your silly head off. But when you stop, try reading this:

I didn't say etiquette isn't important, I used the word "include", remember?

In this case, I use bottom posting because it's short?

Are you a robot or a human being, and if you were a human being, you should be able to adjust based on situations, right?

LOL

Read the link I gave you. And notice how most people in this and other Mac usenet groups avoid top posting. They do this for good reason. Get your act together, cowboy.

Most people just follow and have never asked or checked what they have been doing.

I am not most people.

Enough fun for the day, and good luck.

Top posting destroys the chronology and conversational aspect of any thread. UseNet posting is not the same as email protocol, where top posting a reply is appropriate.

ancient or not, it works and is what's expected for usenet posts.

A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

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

A: The lost context. Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?

A: Yes. Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm replying?

take your own advice.

changing it midstream is even worse.

When someone writes a letter to someone else in regard to a letter that someone else wrote to them, the don't put the original letter on the top and the new letter underneath it. The new material goes on the top. The same is how it should be done in Usenet OR the new material should be intertwined if it needs to be for context. Putting it at the bottom just makes it hard to read for the 90% of the people who have been reading things from the beginning and who don't need to wade thru several pages of old material to finally get down to the bottom where the new stuff is. Just put it at the top where we (the

Or you can put it at the bottom. I really d>>> >>

Well, it's okay with me if you top post. That way I don't have to scroll down when reading posts in my Thunderbird preview window. What's ironic is that the people that stress etiquette in the position of lines in a post are some of the rudest folks around, nor do they seem to care about the content of the post. That's the general state of Usenet these days. Mostly it's old coots that care about form and netcopping, not content. That's the breaks.

Maybe should learn learn how to trim posts properly, rather than simply copy-paste the bit you want back at the top and then reply underneath that.

Most of today's email/newsgroup agents can arrange messages by different criteria including by chronological order, just in case you or others haven't noticed.

It is important for the reader(s) to quickly get into the situation, and that is the reason for us to have this so-called "etiquette."

However, it is also important to consider if the reader(s) has to go through ALL previous messages that have nothing to do with the replied messages, and it this case, what is the purpose for scrolling through all previous messages, especially, when they can read previous messages that are already arranged by chronological order or by conversations?

Or else, what do you think is the reason for the constant improvements on email/newsgroup agents?

You see, it is not a one-size-to-all situation.

The judgement is based on how to help the reader(s) to quickly get into the situations and to understand a particular message which may or may not have anything to do with ALL previous messages.

What a load of bollocks. If someone is replying to a letter, they usually don't include any of the original letter at all ... but that's beside the point since Usenet is not "letter writing" or even email.

No, you are unsocialised autistic. What's it like?

How dare you? Some of my content is the deepest you will ever see.

You mean like the above? It's a partial quote because my reply is to the above quote, and has nothing to do with other comments (if any) or previous comments.

Reading other irrelevant comments will not help a reader to better understand my comments, and will only waste the time.

If, for example, I wish to address comments that are not appropriate to earlier comments, I would do the following:

Why you asked me to learn how to trim posts when I said: Enough fun for the day?

Hint: Productivity is calculated by every second and scroll of doing a thing, and whether people can comprehend the importance of communication efficiency, it's not my problem but I certainly won't change because of ignorance.

TRhat's why you need to learn to delete the excess text that isn't needed (as I've just done) ... hence the term TRIM, rather than just stupidly copy-pasting bits to the top.

When you trim posts properly you can properly bottom post without massive long, irrelevent gabarge to scroll through (again, as I've just done).

So why bother to include all the rest of the post you quoted below? Go ahead, make up some spurious reason.

And why do people have to scroll to see who said what you quoted above? If you quoted and attributed properly, this would happen. By your own arguments, you should be able to see what you are being told but looking at your pigheaded wilfulness, it is unlikely you will.

This is a good thing - let's keep it that way!

I don't make up spurious reasons, I stated the reasoning, and concurred that I am not a saint, and will accept any productive suggestions.

Maybe this kind of attitude is something that you have never learned in your entire life.

But well, it's Usenet, what can I expect? :)