Top Posting.

I do both

"amd" <traffic@six.oclock> wrote in message
newsotklvk6dm61lkqt6s63rjpc29918ci1ba@4ax.com...

I do both

and sometimes I even don't quote the original at all! 8-O

See below for bottom post: <G>

"Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5ab23f$0$14561$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

Now there is a real man for you! <G>

Dashii

amd wrote:

One can't help thinking that I have flushed out this 'amd' fellow who is
somehow insecure about his age and experience. Telling people to 'Grow up'
is not going to convince anyone of his/her argument.

I have used top and bottom posting with six different computers over the
years, first using Acorn browsers and now OE with OE Quote-Fix for some time
now. For anyone interested this useful little utility is available at.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

It will help to show different contributer's quotes in different colours...

My aim was not to start a one-upmanship competition, but to just say how
nice it is in this NG to be able to relax and top post for a change.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003

"Quilljar" <quilljar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bjdlq3$737$1@titan.btinternet.com...
so

Because we mostly read from top to bottom and some threads can become
quite long there is usually an established convention of posting replies
at the bottom so that all replies follow in sequence rather than being
scattered throughout the message.

It's analogous to everyone driving on the right or on the left. But,
just because I drive on the left (UK) and my vehicle is setup to be
driven on the left doesn't mean that I can then continue to drive on the
left in other countries.

Whether a reply is above or below the original text is not usually a
problem, certainly not for me. A much greater sin is quoting long
messages entirely, not using linebreaks, trimming attributions from
messages, not wrapping long lines and TYPING IN CAPITALS ALL THE TIME.
All of these are insignificant next to the unforgiveable crimes of
posting a message in HTML or posting a binary attachment to a non-binary
newsgroup.

Interesting reading. I believe that MS products (newsreaders included)
dominate the market and will ultimately set the standards. Nevertheless,
Mike (AMD) is defending a protocol that does exist, and that he uses
intelligently. Cutting out the dross with judicious <snips> , and replying
or commenting to specific points in a discussion works best the way he does
it.

However, simply bottom posting and leaving shedloads of text above is
wasteful and tiresome. I have noticed that some online banks have for this
reason alone reversed the natural order of their statements - the most
recent item being on the top line. It is this entry that is of most
interest. If financial institutions (as conservative as any) can see their
way to turning such conventions on their head (as it were) - it may not be
the end of the world to question such Usenet conventions.

In this group much of the discussion is a simple request for help of some
sort, that can be answered perfectly well with a top posted reply. It seems
churlish to criticise anyone helping for how they post - better to show by
example. One of the joys of this group is the lack of hostility and the
extraordinary length that strangers go to help one another - and long may it
last!

By the way Quilljar, good of you to point to that Quotefix link - great
little add-on for Outlook Express.

Nick S.



Quilljar wrote:

I often top post but I think it depends on the circumstances, lengthe and
type of answer etc.

If it's a short, definative answer then I see no harm in top posting.

If it's more of a "discussion" type topic, then it may be better to bottom
post or indeed, middle posting is often required when responding to specific
points

Often at times it may be necessary to "clean" up the main body of the thread
if it is becoming confusing with multiple middle posts etc.

If replying to relatively old topics it is much better to post below the
original as many people will no longer have subject line in their news
reader. So it becomes a "stand alone" post.

In short.............applying a bit of common sense, as with all things in
life, is all that seems to be required.

Martin


"Quilljar" <quilljar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bjdlq3$737$1@titan.btinternet.com...
| Off topic I know, but I have recently been given a pasting by the Uber
| fuhrer of another NG for top posting. I wonder why this is considered so
| bad?
|
| The one thing I like about this NG is that practically everyone top posts.
| It is so much easier to read!!
|
| I find this part of the so-called best netiquette moronic.
| You often have to scroll down each post to read what is at the bottom -
| what a pain? Isn't it about time that top posting became the standard?
| This is not a troll really, I mean it...
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003
|
|

Because correspondence occurs sequentially, ie you ask me something, then I
answer. I do not answer before you ask. I'm not a mind reader.




















Top posting.

Quilljar wrote:

My £0.02 worth...

AFAIK top-posting was almost unheard of on usenet until Outlook Express came
along, which automatically places the cursor above the quoted text, thereby
encouraging top-posting.

--
Paul S

amd wrote:


HTML is a very bad thing in e-mails, because it makes the e-mail 4-5 times
bigger than it needs to be.

As for top-posting. To me it all depends on the newsgroup, here it's no
problem. On some Linux newsgroups where everything Micro$oft/Bill Gate$ is
detested, it's another matter.

I uses OE + OE-QuoteFix myself, but only for usenet. I would never use it
for e-mail 'cause I consider the risks from virii/trojans/worms to be too
high.

--
Paul S