I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as,
"Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful
and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous
post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
--
--
Lyle
"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They
find one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and
action that will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to
impose that on all thinking people."
- Gilbert Highet 50 2674
"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:Xb***************@read1.cgocable.net... I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
Shut up. (See above post to give you some idea.)
GoJo4,
"Shut Up!?" A rather trollish response, that. Lyle may wish for a better
behaved populus seeking wisdom here but experience demonstrates that this
bunch has an unruly minority that is difficult to contain. I for one,
appreciate the brevity because it lets me move on to another thread that is
still serving to help someone.
--
Alan Webb kn*******@SPAMhotmail.com
"It's not IT, it's IS"
"GoJo4" <na**@nada.com> wrote in message
news:DO********************@vnet-inc.com... "Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:Xb***************@read1.cgocable.net...I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
Shut up. (See above post to give you some idea.)
"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:Xb***************@read1.cgocable.net... I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful
why?
and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get to the
actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should be at the
bottom (because top posting is 'bad').
If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's
about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post! If
you're having a conversation do you reply every time with:
"Well Frank, you just said yada yada yada blah blah blah and my reply to
that is rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb" ? Of course you don't. We don't 'quote the
original/most recent' in conversation, well not normally. We assume that the
person who just spoke can remember what they just said and that anybody else
who's listening can remember too.
One reason for quoting is to reply to each point seperately. But if
somebody's just a quick thanks I can't see the issue. I'd rather see a brief
acknowledgement that takes less than a screen than nothing.
Most newsreaders make it clear what post is in reply to what other post, and
it's at least as time consuming to scroll down through quoted text as it is
to switch to the post above to see what it was (if you've forgotten).
Mike -- -- Lyle
"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They find one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on all thinking people." - Gilbert Highet
Thanks Gilbert, I'll bear that in mind.
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk... Thanks. :-)
I'll try that.
Mike MacSween wrote: Thanks Gilbert, I'll bear that in mind.
Agreed.
Mike MacSween wrote: That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get to the actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should be at the bottom (because top posting is 'bad').
If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post! If you're having a conversation do you reply every time with:
"Well Frank, you just said yada yada yada blah blah blah and my reply to that is rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb" ? Of course you don't. We don't 'quote the original/most recent' in conversation, well not normally. We assume that the person who just spoke can remember what they just said and that anybody else who's listening can remember too. [SNIP]
Sorry, but you're assuming that everyone reads newsgroups the same way you do.
While you dislike having to scroll through some quoted text in a single message
I dislike scrolling through hundreds of headers that I have already read.
Therefore I set my filter to "New Headers Only". If I read a post that is a
reply with no quoted text then it often makes absolutely no sense. So now I
have to go up and change my filter so "Show All" just so I can back-read enough
posts to see what the poster is responding to. I do not consider Newsnet
threads to be "conversations" and one should not have to get in at the beginning
of a thread to be able to participate in it. In some groups threads will live
on for weeks or months at a time.
An even bigger reason to quote is that not all messages are properly propogated
to all news servers. Even if I chose to "Show All" as my default I will still
see the occassional "RE: blah blah" subject that is completely isolated in its
own thread. I would imagine that this unreliability is why quoting/bottom
posting was long ago adopted as the preferred method to use because it was
undoubtedly the rule rather than the exception when Newsgroups first started
out.
Let me add that I do feel that lazy, thoughtless quoting where a long post is
left unsnipped just to add a one sentence reply is a stupid thing to do and is
easier to live with in a top-post than in a bottom post, but that does not
reflect on the practice of quoting/bottom posting per-se. It just reflects on
people who do things incorrectly and poorly desinged software that doesn't take
us to the new text automatically.
Pan (I believe) has a nice feature where all quoted text is collapsed to a
single marker which has to be double-clicked to reveal the text. Seems like a
nice option that other readers should provide as then seeing quoted text is a
completely individual decision and Top/Bottom posting becomes largely a
non-issue. Another would be a "Show this whole thread" option that would allow
me to switch to "Show All" only for the particular thread instead of the all or
nothing option that I have now. Anyone know of a reader that provides that?
I have tried a half dozen other readers over the last few years and it seems
that for every cool feature that one has it also has one or two things that tick
me off. I inevitably find myself back in OE.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:59:17 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
<ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote: Mike MacSween wrote: That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get to the actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should be at the bottom (because top posting is 'bad').
If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post! If you're having a conversation do you reply every time with:
Sorry, but you're assuming that everyone reads newsgroups the same way you do. While you dislike having to scroll through some quoted text in a single message I dislike scrolling through hundreds of headers that I have already read. Therefore I set my filter to "New Headers Only". If I read a post that is a reply with no quoted text then it often makes absolutely no sense. So now I have to go up and change my filter so "Show All" just so I can back-read enough posts to see what the poster is responding to. I do not consider Newsnet threads to be "conversations" and one should not have to get in at the beginning of a thread to be able to participate in it. In some groups threads will live on for weeks or months at a time.
Pan (I believe) has a nice feature where all quoted text is collapsed to a single marker which has to be double-clicked to reveal the text. Seems like a nice option that other readers should provide as then seeing quoted text is a completely individual decision and Top/Bottom posting becomes largely a non-issue. Another would be a "Show this whole thread" option that would allow me to switch to "Show All" only for the particular thread instead of the all or nothing option that I have now. Anyone know of a reader that provides that?
I have tried a half dozen other readers over the last few years and it seems that for every cool feature that one has it also has one or two things that tick me off. I inevitably find myself back in OE.
I believe that bottom posting and including enough from previous posts
to make the response somewhat understandable is the accepted practice
in usenet. Those that argue for anything other than that have tools
available (or forced upon them) that make another (or multiple other)
method(s) useful.
Personally, I don't care much one way or the other because Free Agent
makes short work of backing up a message or two or three and skipping
to the next unread message is as simple as hitting the N key, even if
the message you are currently reading is 4 months prior to the one you
want to move to.
So, I am responding as someone who has the tools necessary to make
insufficient quoting not a problem, but I feel, nonetheless, that to
quote insufficiently is inappropriate in the context of usenet.
mike
I agree with your point Lyle.
I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about.
So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO.
Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue.
I would prefer top-posting. Why ?
IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way.
Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message).
I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way,
I disagree here ... Why ?
I often search Google before posting a question.
So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them.
BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again.
Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."
Just my 2p
Arno R
"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> schreef in bericht news:Xb***************@read1.cgocable.net... I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
Arno R wrote: I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way, I disagree here ... Why ? [snip]
Bottom posting and proper snipping/quoting go hand in hand. If I need to
read quoted material I need to read it *before* the new material. If I
don't need to read the quoted material then it shouldn't be there. Top
posting tends to go hand in hand with quoting the entirety of the previous
message which is almost always unnecessary.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Arno R wrote: I agree with your point Lyle.
So do I
I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about. So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO. Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue.
It is and I'll show you why it should be done this way.
I would prefer top-posting. Why ? IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way. Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message).
But which part of your post am I referring to now?
I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way, I disagree here ... Why ? I often search Google before posting a question. So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them. BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again. Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."
Have you been there lately? Not a problem.
So do I
It is and I'll show you why it should be done this way.
But which part of your post am I referring to now?
Have you been there lately? Not a problem.
If the above makes no sense that's because I was mocking a top poster,
now read my properly posted reply in next message to understand.
Arno R wrote: I agree with your point Lyle. I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about. So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO. Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue.
I would prefer top-posting. Why ? IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way. Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message).
I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way, I disagree here ... Why ? I often search Google before posting a question. So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them. BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again. Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."
Just my 2p
Arno R
"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> schreef in bericht news:Xb***************@read1.cgocable.net...
I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
Mike MacSween wrote: If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post!
See my response a couple of threads down (or up depending on newsreader)
entitled "Insert Random Number", Locky didn't quote any of my text
when he asked me the next question about a function I'd given him, he
wanted to know how to call it in a query, I've given him a duff answer
because I forgot that my function had 2 parameters and not 1.
No, I'm not senile yet. I only ever forget 3 types of thing, names,
faces and I forget what the other thing was.
On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:59:17 +0000, Rick Brandt wrote: Mike MacSween wrote: [quoted text muted]
Pan (I believe) has a nice feature where all quoted text is collapsed to a single marker which has to be double-clicked to reveal the text.
Found it, the Q key, even keeps the quoted text muted in replies :-)
"Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote
in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk: If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post! If you're having a conversation do you reply every time. . .
Well, I tend to pick the threads I read based on who is posting to
them. I have certain people's posts flagged. A thread could appear
with three or four replies in it and it might not be until the
second day of the thread that one of the people I have flagged makes
a reply. At that point, if the topic interests me, I may dip into
the thread.
The kinds of replies that the people who posting through Usenet
repackaging websites make usually don't quote anything and I have to
go to Google to see what the thread is about.
I think that's actually the source of the problem Lyle is
complaining about, these web-based interfaces that don't have good
posting tools.
One reason for quoting is to reply to each point seperately. But if somebody's just a quick thanks I can't see the issue. I'd rather see a brief acknowledgement that takes less than a screen than nothing.
A "thanks" that adds nothing at all to the discussion should be
emailed privately, in my opinion. The only time it makes sense is if
there were, say, three possible suggestions, and only one of them
worked. Then it's useful to say "thanks, I tried all three of your
suggestions, and only the 2nd one worked" since that helps people
reading the discussion in the Google archive.
Most newsreaders make it clear what post is in reply to what other post, and it's at least as time consuming to scroll down through quoted text as it is to switch to the post above to see what it was (if you've forgotten).
My newsreader does not retain the posts I read yesterday. It can
certainly retrieve them from my news server if they haven't expired,
but often they *have* expired.
The key point: quote as much as necessary to make your reply
comprehensible, but not more (you don't need the whole history of
the thread back to Adam and Eve).
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> schreef in bericht news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk... So do I It is and I'll show you why it should be done this way. But which part of your post am I referring to now? Have you been there lately? Not a problem. If the above makes no sense that's because I was mocking a top poster, now read my properly posted reply in next message to understand.
Sorry, I was obviously not clear and explicit enough in what I said.
I should have added something like:
If one is responding/ reacting to several issues, than 'inline-comments' are a proper way to answer.
IMO the main point is that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread/answer is about.
Arno R wrote: I agree with your point Lyle. I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about. So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO. Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue. I would prefer top-posting. Why ? IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way. Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message). I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way, I disagree here ... Why ? I often search Google before posting a question. So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them. BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again. Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..." Have you been there lately? Not a problem.
I have searched Google a LOT lately. Maybe I miss something here ?
Arno R
Arno R wrote: I often search Google before posting a question. So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them. BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again. Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."
Have you been there lately? Not a problem.
I have searched Google a LOT lately. Maybe I miss something here ?
The fact that Google collapses quoted text?
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> schreef in bericht news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk... I have searched Google a LOT lately. Maybe I miss something here ? The fact that Google collapses quoted text?
Indeed! I have totally missed the whole Google-Groups beta.
Just came across that today !
Looks like a major improvement (first impression).
I always use(d) a shortcut to Google-Groups (not the beta).
My default browser-page is www.Google.nl
From this page to groups does NOT lead to Google-Groups beta ...
Changed the shortcut !
Arno R
On Mon, 2 May 2005 10:17:49 +0100, "Mike MacSween"
<mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote: "Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:Xb***************@read1.cgocable.net...I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful
why?
and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get to the actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should be at the bottom (because top posting is 'bad').
I am aware that top posting is bad form. Why? Please explain in
English.
[snip]
- - Bob McClenon
Robert McClenon wrote: I am aware that top posting is bad form. Why? Please explain in English.
Because you read from top to bottom, top posters mess up the natrual
flow of things. It invariably leads to posts not being snipped.
--
[Oo=w=oO]
This stuff all depends on the type of thread, the length of posts, and yes,
personal preferences.
In my newsreader, Outlook Express (yes yes, get yourself a proper news
reader, blah blah blah), the actual new content (or at least some of it) of
a post is usually off the bottom of the screen, if there is any quoting. So
I have to tab out of the messages pane to the preview pane, arrow down or
page down to read the complete message, then shift tab or tab twice to get
back to the messages pane. Whereas with brief top posts, I can just arrow
down through the messages pane. One quarter as many key strokes.
Most of the time I'm either following a thread, so it's marked, or I'm not.
And if I'm following it I've got a fairly good idea what it's about. So if
message a says "blah blah" I read it, and arrow down to the response, which
if it is top posted, or maybe has no quotes atall, is still perfectly
understandable, and one arrow key away from the one it's responding to.
Of course, if you want to respond to a post point by point, then
quote/reply/quote/reply makes more sense..
Some people may have different methods of accessing newsgroups, or different
ways they want to prioritise posts. Fine.
I don't think this is anything to do with 'Newsgroup Etiquette'. It's to do
with posting style. Of course those who don't like top posting and see it as
deeply evil and against the whole spirit of CDMA can just not read top posts
(difficult I know, as they're a lot easier to read than bottom posts). If
you don't like it, don't read it.
Mike
[post not snipped]
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk... Robert McClenon wrote: I am aware that top posting is bad form. Why? Please explain in English.
Because you read from top to bottom, top posters mess up the natrual flow of things. It invariably leads to posts not being snipped.
-- [Oo=w=oO]
"Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. . I have to tab out of the messages pane to the preview pane, arrow down or page down to read the complete message, then shift tab or tab twice to get back to the messages pane. Whereas with brief top posts, I can just arrow down through the messages pane. One quarter as many key strokes.
Mike,
Are you aware of the use of the *spacebar* while reading messages with OE ?? Try it !
This will help you a lot with all these notorious bottom-posters here. ;-)
If you read a message, the spacebar does a sort of 'page-down' in the preview pane.
If the end of the message is reached, the next one appears ! Very handy.
I think one of the programmers in the OE-team did this without telling anybody ...
I just stumbled on this a while ago. Can't find it in the help neither. But I like it.
Sometimes I am just 'enjoying' the messages with the use of only ONE key (spacebar)
and of course a button (added in the toolbar) 'Next unread message' (not sure if this is the right translation here...)
(Ctrl-U also brings you to the next 'unread')
Another key combination of great use in OE is 'Ctrl-H'
This one switches between threads where you participated, and all threads.
Arno R
Arno
Bloody great!! Thanks for that. I'm always telling my users to learn the
keyboard shortcuts, maybe I should 'eat my own dogfood' and do the same.
Oh, if anybody's wondering what I'm talking about it's all underneath here,
somewhere or other <g>
Mike
"Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:42*********************@dreader2.news.tiscali .nl...
"Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> schreef in
bericht news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. . I have to tab out of the messages pane to the preview pane, arrow down or page down to read the complete message, then shift tab or tab twice to get back to the messages pane. Whereas with brief top posts, I can just arrow down through the messages pane. One quarter as many key strokes.
Mike,
Are you aware of the use of the *spacebar* while reading messages with OE ??
Try it !
This will help you a lot with all these notorious bottom-posters here. ;-)
If you read a message, the spacebar does a sort of 'page-down' in the
preview pane.
If the end of the message is reached, the next one appears ! Very handy.
I think one of the programmers in the OE-team did this without telling
anybody ...
I just stumbled on this a while ago. Can't find it in the help neither. But
I like it.
Sometimes I am just 'enjoying' the messages with the use of only ONE key
(spacebar)
and of course a button (added in the toolbar) 'Next unread message' (not
sure if this is the right translation here...)
(Ctrl-U also brings you to the next 'unread')
Another key combination of great use in OE is 'Ctrl-H'
This one switches between threads where you participated, and all threads.
Arno R
"Robert McClenon" <ro*************@verizon.net> wrote I am aware that top posting is bad form. Why? Please explain in English.
There is an ongoing debate about whether top posting or bottom posting is
bad form, good form, or even acceptable, and the beliefs on this issue can
be very strong -- almost religious. I expect that debate to continue as long
as there are newsgroups unless some governmental body is granted authority
and mandates a method, which I hope never happens.
People whose opinions I value are firmly entrenched on both sides of this
argument. To me, it seems that sometimes top-posting is preferrable and, in
other situations, bottom-posting with thoughtfully-trimmed quotes to
establish context works best.
In practice, it often depends on whether I have time/energy to thoughtfully
trim the quotes. I accept appropriate responsibility for "cluttering" or
"littering" when I do not satisfactorily trim and for "obscuring" when I
don't quote at all. Mea culpa.
Larry Linson
"Lyle Fairfield" wrote I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as, "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
Hear, hear. Lyle and I have disagreed on some issues in the past, but I am
fully in agreement with him on this one. I'd add that there are other good
suggestions for effective use of newsgroups in the FAQ at http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm.
Larry Linson
(caster of one of the official votes approving
establishing this newsgroup back in 1993, and,
more recently, Microsoft Access MVP)
"Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:42*********************@dreader2.news.tiscali .nl: If you read a message, the spacebar does a sort of 'page-down' in the preview pane. If the end of the message is reached, the next one appears ! Very handy. I think one of the programmers in the OE-team did this without telling anybody ... I just stumbled on this a while ago. Can't find it in the help neither. But I like it.
It's a traditional "next screen" command in old-style UNIX apps
designed to be used in various terminal emulations where there's no
common mapping for arrow or page navigation keys. I learned to use
it browsing the web with Lynx back in the early 90s, and while
reading Usenet with tin during the same time period.
Browsers honor it, too.
Indeed, lots of non-editing windows honor it.
And it's A Good Thing.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
"Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote
in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk: This stuff all depends on the type of thread, the length of posts, and yes, personal preferences.
No, what it depends on is how much is quoted and how much of the
quote the reply is relevant to.
Your typical bottom poster won't quote an entire message and then
add a reply at the bottom -- that's a mark of a complete moron.
On the other hand, your typical top poster will quote the entire
post, including signatures (which serve not purpose whatsoever, and
which any proper newsreader would trim out automatically, if only
the quoted post were formatted correctly in the first place, with a
signature at the bottom, instead of in between the reply and the
quotation; but I digress), and insert a line or two at the top of
the reply, often addressing multiple points from the quoted text,
without any clear indication of what the hell they are talking
about.
This post of yours that I'm replying to is a perfect example. Now,
reading it in the context of the original thread, immediately after
reading the original post to which you were replying, there is no
real inconvenience. I don't have any need to refer back to what you
were quoting, as I had just read it seconds before retrieving your
post.
But if, for instance, I read the post you replied to yesterday, and
then today come upon your reply, then I'll have to scroll down to
the bottom to check the context of what the hell you're rambling on
about.
The key point that most people agree on:
- Don't quote anything that you're not directly addressing.
The idea that "gee, I really must quote everything so that anyone
who comes on my post by itself somewhere will have the whole history
of the thread going back to Adam and Eve" is stupid and causes more
harm than good.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
These apples are really nice you know, would you like to try one?
David W. Fenton wrote: Browsers honor it, too.
Indeed, lots of non-editing windows honor it.
And it's A Good Thing.
There was another thing that newsreaders used to honor and that was not
allowing people to quote more text than they contribute but I guess it
fell foul of people adding extra unneccessary garbage to the ends of
their posts, not much different to what a top poster does :-)
--
[Oo=w=oO]
Mike MacSween wrote: These apples are really nice you know, would you like to try one?
OK, erm, they're poisoned!
No, there be no sense in killing you... yet.
--
[Oo=w=oO]
David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
This stuff all depends on the type of thread, the length of posts, and yes, personal preferences.
No, what it depends on is how much is quoted and how much of the quote the reply is relevant to.
Your typical bottom poster won't quote an entire message and then add a reply at the bottom -- that's a mark of a complete moron.
[snip]
People are certainy free to post how they wish, but I just wish the top posters
would be honest about it. They top post because that requires the least amount
of work on their part. The only valid "sounding" argument for top posting is
basically "I top post because that is what I prefer to *read*" which is really
weak because how you personally post has very little to do with what the other
posts you are reading will look like (unless these guys think they are slowly
going to win us all over to their preference by doing it themselves).
Evidence of my argument is that you will almost never see an appropriately
snipped top posted reply. If you go to the trouble to thoughtfully snip then
there is no longer any convenience in top posting. If they were really honest
with themselves they would admit that they top post because the client they use
defaults to that (and therefore it is the most convenient). If they were using
a client that defaulted their cursor below the quoted text then that is what
they would do. This raises the problem you are complaining about David. Lazy
posters using a client that positions their response below the quote are going
to be most likley to leave long unsnipped quotes with a single sentence response
at the bottom which for many would be even worse (although the space bar trick
defangs that to a large degree).
I have long acknowledged that in a technical group (post a question, get an
answer), that a top post is no big deal. Particularly if the responder is
confident that they are providing a definitive answer. In those cases there is
little chance of the thread growing beyond a few disjointed messages anyway.
Any thread that becomes a "discussion" though is always disturbed in my view
when there is a top post plopped into the middle of it.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk: David W. Fenton wrote: Browsers honor it, too.
Indeed, lots of non-editing windows honor it.
And it's A Good Thing.
There was another thing that newsreaders used to honor and that was not allowing people to quote more text than they contribute but I guess it fell foul of people adding extra unneccessary garbage to the ends of their posts, not much different to what a top poster does :-)
I assume you're referring to cutting anything after the signature
identifier, which has always been defined as two dashes followed by
a space on a line by itself. My newsreader, xNews, still honors it,
and won't quote anything past it *unless* you block select the whole
message before initiating the reply.
Top posting with the sig after the reply and before the quote works
quite nicely for cutting out a huge amount of unnecessary quoted
material. Of course, when I *need* to quote from that, I have to
work harder, eother by copying manually or by selecting the text
before the reply. This shows that top-posting thwarts the
assumptions behind the design of most newsreaders as to how things
should work.
Indeed, there is no way for any newsreader to figure it out a
top-posted reply and automatically quote the right things, because
the order of material is just wrong for the sequence of discussion.
But I can certainly tolerate it when the quoting is selective and
where the subject of the reply is clear. What drives me nuts is a
top-posted reply that addresses several points, and does not
interleave them with the actual points being addresses, causing the
reader to have to scan through the quoted text to make sense of the
top-posted reply.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Trevor Best wrote: There was another thing that newsreaders used to honor and that was not allowing people to quote more text than they contribute
"Postnews told me to edit the quoted article of excess verbage. Does
anyone know what that means?"
--
To Email Me, ROT13 My Shown Email Address
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M%***********@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
> This stuff all depends on the type of thread, the length of posts, > and yes, personal preferences.
No, what it depends on is how much is quoted and how much of the quote the reply is relevant to.
Your typical bottom poster won't quote an entire message and then add a reply at the bottom -- that's a mark of a complete moron. [snip]
People are certainy free to post how they wish, but I just wish the top posters would be honest about it. They top post because that requires the least amount of work on their part. The only valid "sounding" argument for top posting is basically "I top post because that is what I prefer to *read*" which is really weak because how you personally post has very little to do with what the other posts you are reading will look like (unless these guys think they are slowly going to win us all over to their preference by doing it themselves).
Evidence of my argument is that you will almost never see an appropriately snipped top posted reply. If you go to the trouble to thoughtfully snip then there is no longer any convenience in top posting. If they were really honest with themselves they would admit that they top post because the client they use defaults to that (and therefore it is the most convenient). If they were using a client that defaulted their cursor below the quoted text then that is what they would do. This raises the problem you are complaining about David. Lazy posters using a client that positions their response below the quote are going to be most likley to leave long unsnipped quotes with a single sentence response at the bottom which for many would be even worse (although the space bar trick defangs that to a large degree).
I have long acknowledged that in a technical group (post a question, get an answer), that a top post is no big deal. Particularly if the responder is confident that they are providing a definitive answer. In those cases there is little chance of the thread growing beyond a few disjointed messages anyway. Any thread that becomes a "discussion" though is always disturbed in my view when there is a top post plopped into the middle of it.
-- I don't check the Email account attached to this message. Send instead to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy "Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in news:42*********************@dreader2.news.tiscali .nl:
If you read a message, the spacebar does a sort of 'page-down' in the preview pane. If the end of the message is reached, the next one appears ! Very handy. I think one of the programmers in the OE-team did this without telling anybody ... I just stumbled on this a while ago. Can't find it in the help neither. But I like it.
For the record, this works in Mozilla Mail as well. Thanks for the tip.
--
Bri
"Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote
in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
[several screens of quotation] Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy
Er, I object to bottom posting of the style you just demonstrated,
where everything is quoted and one line is added.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
[several screens of quotation]
Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy
Er, I object to bottom posting of the style you just demonstrated, where everything is quoted and one line is added.
O.K.
We have gone full circle.
What fun.
"Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk.. . "Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:M%***********@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
> This stuff all depends on the type of thread, the length of posts, > and yes, personal preferences.
No, what it depends on is how much is quoted and how much of the quote the reply is relevant to.
Your typical bottom poster won't quote an entire message and then add a reply at the bottom -- that's a mark of a complete moron. [snip]
People are certainy free to post how they wish, but I just wish the top posters would be honest about it. They top post because that requires
the least amount of work on their part. The only valid "sounding" argument for top posting is basically "I top post because that is what I prefer
to *read*" which is really weak because how you personally post has very little to do with what the other posts you are reading will look like (unless these guys think they are slowly going to win us all over to
their preference by doing it themselves).
Evidence of my argument is that you will almost never see an
appropriately snipped top posted reply. If you go to the trouble to thoughtfully snip then there is no longer any convenience in top posting. If they were really honest with themselves they would admit that they top post
because the client they use defaults to that (and therefore it is the most convenient). If they were using a client that defaulted their cursor below the quoted text then that is what they would do. This raises the problem you are complaining about David. Lazy posters using a client
that positions their response below the quote are going to be most likley to leave long unsnipped quotes with a single sentence response at the
bottom which for many would be even worse (although the space bar trick defangs that to a large degree).
I have long acknowledged that in a technical group (post a question, get an answer), that a top post is no big deal. Particularly if the
responder is confident that they are providing a definitive answer. In those
cases there is little chance of the thread growing beyond a few disjointed messages anyway. Any thread that becomes a "discussion" though is always disturbed in my view when there is a top post plopped into the middle of it.
-- I don't check the Email account attached to this message. Send instead to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy
Me, too. <GRIN>
David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
[several screens of quotation]
Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy
Er, I object to bottom posting of the style you just demonstrated, where everything is quoted and one line is added.
He was actually demonstrating a sense of humor, you should get one :-)
--
[Oo=w=oO]
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42**************@besty.org.uk... David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk: [several screens of quotation]
Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy
Er, I object to bottom posting of the style you just demonstrated, where everything is quoted and one line is added.
He was actually demonstrating a sense of humor, you should get one :-)
Thank god somebody got it. I think David's had a visit from the irony
police.
Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:42**************@besty.org.uk: David W. Fenton wrote: "Mike MacSween" <mi***************************@btinternet.com> wrote in news:42***********************@news.aaisp.net.uk:
[several screens of quotation]
Yes, you're right. I top post because I'm lazy
Er, I object to bottom posting of the style you just demonstrated, where everything is quoted and one line is added.
He was actually demonstrating a sense of humor, you should get one :-)
I once had one, but it wore out, just a few days after the warranty
expired.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
On Sat, 07 May 2005 09:31:08 +0100, Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk>
wrote: Robert McClenon wrote: I am aware that top posting is bad form. Why? Please explain in English.
Because you read from top to bottom, top posters mess up the natrual flow of things. It invariably leads to posts not being snipped.
Yes, but. Top posters usually leave the entire original history
there. Bottom posters often snip parts of it.
Is it really that top-posting is offensive, or that snipping context
is offensive?
I have observed that in "usually friendly" groups, such as
rec.arts.scrapbooking, top-posting is permitted. In "usually
unfriendly" groups, such as news.groups, it is condemned, with great
volume. Maybe what is really wrong is being unfriendly. Maybe what
should be recognized is that any attempt to trim the context of an
unfriendly post is dishonest, and that top or bottom posting is not
the issue.
- - Bob McClenon
You'd still have to read the post bottom to top (wrong way) to get the
gist of what I was answering. This is not a good eample as you only made
one point to answer but a lot of posts have several points.
Robert McClenon wrote: I have observed that in "usually friendly" groups, such as rec.arts.scrapbooking, top-posting is permitted. In "usually unfriendly" groups, such as news.groups, it is condemned, with great volume. Maybe what is really wrong is being unfriendly. Maybe what should be recognized is that any attempt to trim the context of an unfriendly post is dishonest, and that top or bottom posting is not the issue.
- - Bob McClenon
--
[Oo=w=oO]
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:27:47 +0100, Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk>
wrote: You'd still have to read the post bottom to top (wrong way) to get the gist of what I was answering. This is not a good eample as you only made one point to answer but a lot of posts have several points.
That point is well taken. Of course, in responding to multiple
points, care needs to be taken in how to structure the follow-up,
either by in-line posting, or by organizing a bottom post in
paragraphs.
What annoys and amuses me at the same time is the vehemence and volume
with which top-posting is condemned, when other violations of
netiquette, including being rude and loud, or selectively omitting
context, are worse.
- - Bob McClenon Robert McClenon wrote: I have observed that in "usually friendly" groups, such as rec.arts.scrapbooking, top-posting is permitted. In "usually unfriendly" groups, such as news.groups, it is condemned, with great volume. Maybe what is really wrong is being unfriendly. Maybe what should be recognized is that any attempt to trim the context of an unfriendly post is dishonest, and that top or bottom posting is not the issue.
- - Bob McClenon
On Sat, 07 May 2005 09:31:08 +0100, Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk>
wrote: Robert McClenon wrote: I am aware that top posting is bad form. Why? Please explain in English.
Because you read from top to bottom, top posters mess up the natrual flow of things. It invariably leads to posts not being snipped.
I have had my question answered as to why top-posting is less than
desirable. That does not answer another question, which is thy a few
people who criticize top-posting are so loud about criticizing it.
Top-posting is less than desirable, but being rude about undesirable
practices is also undesirable and rude.
Thank you.
- - Bob McClenon
Robert McClenon wrote: I have had my question answered as to why top-posting is less than desirable. That does not answer another question, which is thy a few people who criticize top-posting are so loud about criticizing it. Top-posting is less than desirable, but being rude about undesirable practices is also undesirable and rude.
I don't think it has anything to do with it, I've criticized top posters
but I've not been rude to them (I've been rude to other people
regardless), I have a lot of respect for the regulars on this ng and
some of them top post.
--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly
n33d t0 g37 l41d
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk... 1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Ain't it the truth!
--
Cheers,
Lyn.
Lyn wrote: "Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk...
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Ain't it the truth!
What does it say? <g>
--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly
n33d t0 g37 l41d
"Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk... Lyn wrote: "Trevor Best" <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in message news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk...
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Ain't it the truth!
What does it say? <g>
-- 1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
"If you can read this u really need to get laid"
How come you know me so well?!
--
Cheers,
Lyn. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jan Roland Eriksson |
last post by:
Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq
Posting-Frequency: once a week
Last-modified: 2004-07-26
Version: 2.00
URL: <http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html>
Maintainer: Jan Roland Eriksson...
|
by: Matthew Wells |
last post by:
I have repeatedly been frustrated by people who "waste" other people's posts
that ask questions. By "waste" I mean publicy replying to a post without
offering a useful answer. I must admit that...
|
by: John Welch |
last post by:
Sometimes I post a question here and someone answers it quickly with an
answer like "well, I don't know much about this, but maybe such and such."
While I completely appreciate their effort, I...
|
by: sasan3 |
last post by:
Please read below for my collective response to recent posts on this
topic.
First a repeat of my suggestion:
"Anytime you feel you are in a position to answer a question, but
don't
feel like...
|
by: Peter Oliphant |
last post by:
I was thinking it might be a good idea to split this newsgroup into
different newsgroups, depending on the version of VS C++.NET being
discussed. Thus, there would be 2002, 2003, and 2005...
|
by: Netkiller |
last post by:
#!/usr/bin/python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Project: Network News Transport Protocol Server Program
Description:
基于数据库的新闻组,实现BBS前端使用NNTP协议来访问贴子...
|
by: Dr John Stockton |
last post by:
kelvlam <kelvlam@gmail.composted :
The newsgroup FAQ has not been posted here for some considerable while.
The latest version I know of is 8.1 - 2005-11-05
but I think the Web site serves...
|
by: anonymouse127 |
last post by:
This is now such a nasty place to visit so I'm quitting coming here.
Newbies are regularly attacked in a vicious way about top-posting -
which is a completely normal thing to do outside of this...
|
by: Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) |
last post by:
Top posting is also considered bad netiquette.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
Subscribe to my blog
http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com/lists/feed.rss
or just read it:
|
by: CloudSolutions |
last post by:
Introduction:
For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
|
by: Faith0G |
last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often need to import Excel data into databases (such as MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle) for data analysis and processing. Usually, we use database tools like Navicat or the Excel import...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
| |