Top-Posting Vs. Bottom-Posting

[Neil]

I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier for the reader to
see the reply, rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd ask
its members, especially Sir Larry, what the preferred method is (if any).
Here are the links the fellow provided me:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

Thanks,

Neil

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote:

>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies.

I bottom post but then I always trim. A habit from the days of $.86 per minute long
distance and 2400 bps modems. Larry Linson and I first met on the Fidonet Access
echo back in 1993 or 1994 or so. It was a pleasure to finally meet him at an MVP
summit a few years ago.

Top posting but not trimming is likely one of the biggest peeves of mine when a
thread starts getting long. Especially if some dimwit keeps 300 lines and posts a
short "I agree" at the bottom.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

[Keith Wilby]

"Tony Toews [MVP]" <tt****@telusplanet.netwrote in message
news:a0********************************@4ax.com...

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote:

>>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies.

I bottom post but then I always trim. A habit from the days of $.86 per
minute long
distance and 2400 bps modems. Larry Linson and I first met on the Fidonet
Access
echo back in 1993 or 1994 or so. It was a pleasure to finally meet him
at an MVP
summit a few years ago.

Top posting but not trimming is likely one of the biggest peeves of mine
when a
thread starts getting long. Especially if some dimwit keeps 300 lines
and posts a
short "I agree" at the bottom.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

I agree ;-)

Sorry Tony, couldn't resist.

[lyle fairfield]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:t8****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net :

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

I don't care. I read this forum for substance.

For form I go over to alt.pictures.svelte-american-women; unfortunately
there has been nothing posted there for more than nine years.

But it used to be great for bottom-posting.

.... top too.

--
lyle fairfield

I will arise and go now,
For always night and day
I hear lake water lapping
With low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway
Or on the pavements gray,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
- Yeats

[Rick Brandt]

Neil wrote:

I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't
top-post my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier
for the reader to see the reply,

Sure, but what about all the readers for whom it is not a reply? If I ask a
question and you top post an answer that's great for me. For someone who comes
along later and sees only your post they have to read it backwards.

One thing that is certainly true is that top posting is easier for the poster.
Saying that it is easier for readers is at worst disengenuous and simply
incorrect at best.

(newsnet posts are not merely a conversation between two people)

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

The biggest problem with top posters is that they don't trim down to the
specific quotes they are replying to. Leaving a huge quoted thread in a post
with a few comments at the very bottom is just as bad or worse than top posting.

Many assume that how the thread looks in their interface is how it looks to
everyone else and don't consider how the thread looks days or weeks later. You
can't assume that the whole thread is being read in real time with memory of
previous posts helping out.

To me it is a bigger deal in discussion threads. If an initial post is a
question that can be definitively answered in a single response then having that
response be top posted is not such a big deal. Longer threads get to be a mess
real quick with top posting though. Of course one never knows when a simple
question/answer thread is going to turn into a long discussion thread.

Ultimately the conventions of the group are what should be followed (if it has
any).

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Arch]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:49:16 -0600, "Rick Brandt"
<ri*********@hotmail.comwrote:

[trim]

>Ultimately the conventions of the group are what should be followed (if it has
any).

I personally prefer top posted messages. I find it quicker and easier
to read replies at the top. But I believe that Rick is correct about
following conventions. Top posting is considered objectionable in a
vast majority of newsgroups.

[Arno R]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netschreef in bericht news:t8****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...

>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier for the reader to
see the reply, rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd ask
its members, especially Sir Larry, what the preferred method is (if any).

Nice issue again (how many times did we discuss this ??)
I once learned from this: (but I still top-post sometimes)
||
**************
A: Top-posting
Q: What is annoying in usenet ??
*************************

What about 'middle-posting ?? I mean 'inline' of course. ;-)
When really discussing issues it's much preferable IMO to answer 'inline'.

I fully agree with the pledge of others to trim
-- Trim all from the original post that is unneeded in the reply.
-- Leave only the lines that you are responding to.

Arno R

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

"Keith Wilby" <he**@there.comwrote:

>Especially if some dimwit keeps 300 lines

>and posts a
short "I agree" at the bottom.

I agree ;-)

Sorry Tony, couldn't resist.

<whack One in every crowd. <chuckle>

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

[David W. Fenton]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in
news:iV**************@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

Many assume that how the thread looks in their interface is how it
looks to everyone else and don't consider how the thread looks
days or weeks later.

This is a key point. Post for the Google Groups archive -- including
everything since Adam and Eve is really dumb there, since all the
posts are there in succession.

I hate top posting, but don't mind it when the quoted matter is
trimmed to just the the part that is being addressed. The point is
not where you put your reply, but how intelligently you cut out the
garbage that makes the post more difficult to read.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Deano]

"Arno R" <ar****************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:47***********************@text.nova.planet.nl ...
"Neil" <no****@nospam.netschreef in bericht
news:t8****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...

>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier for the reader

to

see the reply, rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd

ask

its members, especially Sir Larry, what the preferred method is (if any).

Nice issue again (how many times did we discuss this ??)
I once learned from this: (but I still top-post sometimes)
||
**************
A: Top-posting
Q: What is annoying in usenet ??
*************************

What Arno said

[Larry Linson]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in

I received a message in another newsgroup saying
that I shouldn't top-post my replies. I always top-post,
because I feel it's easier for the reader to see the reply,
rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post
in, I thought I'd ask its members, especially Sir Larry,
what the preferred method is (if any).

I top-post more often than I should, usually when I am in a hurry... at the
risk of irritating many, that can let me answer a few more questions, and
again, all too often, I don't trim when I top-post.

I also bottom-post, almost always with trimming.

And, as well, I sometimes trim, and post the answer or response immediately
after the appropriate material quoted from the original.

And, if my response is "complete in itself", and doesn't need any "context",
I some times post with no quotes at all.

So, I am not a good one to use as an example or as an authority on the
subject... none of the approaches really irritates me, but I agree with
those who object to responses without any trimming. I no longer "admonish"
those who don't, but unless the thread is very, very interesting to me, I
may ignore threads with no trimming when the chain of posts lengthens.

And I have been "admonished" for top-posting (sometimes right here), and the
other methods (here or elsewhere)... as I don't really have a vested
interest in which approach, I no longer really get involved in detailed, or
heated, discussions on the issue. I just chalk it up to a matter of personal
preference.

If you want to "do as I say, not as I do", don't top-post, do trim, and use
one of the last three approaches I described, as you think is appropriate.
BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET "rule" on the
issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are points to be made for
and against each approach.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Neil]

For form I go over to alt.pictures.svelte-american-women; unfortunately
there has been nothing posted there for more than nine years.

But it used to be great for bottom-posting.

... top too.

That was pretty funny! ;-)

[Neil]

"Arch" <se*****@spam.netwrote in message
news:u4********************************@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:49:16 -0600, "Rick Brandt"
<ri*********@hotmail.comwrote:

[trim]

>>Ultimately the conventions of the group are what should be followed (if it
has
any).

I personally prefer top posted messages.

THANK YOU! (I knew I wasn't alone! ;-) )

I find it quicker and easier
to read replies at the top. But I believe that Rick is correct about
following conventions. Top posting is considered objectionable in a
vast majority of newsgroups.

Yes, it does seem that way. Thanks,

Neil

[Neil]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:iV**************@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

Neil wrote:

>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't
top-post my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier
for the reader to see the reply,

Sure, but what about all the readers for whom it is not a reply? If I ask
a question and you top post an answer that's great for me. For someone
who comes along later and sees only your post they have to read it
backwards.

I guess I just go by my own reading methods. When I come to a thread I'm not
familiar with, I just read the original posts. I NEVER rely on getting back
information from quoted material.

Now, granted, with some long threads, you can't do that. But if a thread's
that long, it's likely just the subthread you're interested in anyway. So I
go to the beginning of that.

So I just go post-by-post through the thread, which is usually just a few
posts, maybe 10 at the most, and I look for each answer. If it's at the top,
that's convenient.

>
One thing that is certainly true is that top posting is easier for the
poster. Saying that it is easier for readers is at worst disengenuous and
simply incorrect at best.

Wow. Harsh. :-) Let me see... am I disengenuous or just incorrect...
disengenuous or incorrect... I'll take disengenuous! No, incorrect! No,
disengenuous! :-)

I do say it's easier for readers, for those who read like me, per my above
note. And I don't believe I'm either disengenuous or incorrect. Now, if
there's no one else in the world who reads threads like I do, then I'd be
incorrect. But I don't think that's the case. We post-readers may be in the
minority; but I don't think I'm entirely alone.

As for your statement that it's easier for the poster, I disagree. I find it
easier to post at the end, when I'm done reading. It's actually extra work
for me to return to the top and place my comment. So I find that statement
to be incorrect at best, but disengenuous at worst. ;-)

>
(newsnet posts are not merely a conversation between two people)

Good to know! :-)

>Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

The biggest problem with top posters is that they don't trim down to the
specific quotes they are replying to. Leaving a huge quoted thread in a
post with a few comments at the very bottom is just as bad or worse than
top posting.

Many assume that how the thread looks in their interface is how it looks
to everyone else and don't consider how the thread looks days or weeks
later. You can't assume that the whole thread is being read in real time
with memory of previous posts helping out.

To me it is a bigger deal in discussion threads. If an initial post is a
question that can be definitively answered in a single response then
having that response be top posted is not such a big deal. Longer threads
get to be a mess real quick with top posting though. Of course one never
knows when a simple question/answer thread is going to turn into a long
discussion thread.

Ultimately the conventions of the group are what should be followed (if it
has any).

Well, honestly, bottom posting is easier for me, as I stated above. I just
thought it was rude to make the person wade through the entire text to get
to the bottom, so I took the extra step to go back to the top and post, so
it would be more convenient for the reader. It seems, though, that most
people here either don't care or favor bottom posting. I still need to read
the rest of the replies, but it seems that that's the favored approach.

Thanks,

Neil

>
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Neil]

So, I am not a good one to use as an example or as an authority on the
subject...

Yes. I just felt that, since you're usually big on forum protocol, you might
have the "official" answer. :-)

BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET "rule" on
the issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are points to be made
for and against each approach.

That's good to know. For me personally, it was just a matter of courtesy, as
I felt the reader would prefer a top-posted response (despite allegations of
possible disengenuousness on my part :-) ). So, since people seem to favor
bottom-posting, if anything, that's fine. That just seemed discourteous to
me.

Thanks,

Neil

[Chuck Grimsby]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:42:12 -0600, "Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote:

>BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET "rule" on
the issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are points to be made
for and against each approach.

>That's good to know. For me personally, it was just a matter of courtesy, as
I felt the reader would prefer a top-posted response (despite allegations of
possible disengenuousness on my part :-) ). So, since people seem to favor
bottom-posting, if anything, that's fine. That just seemed discourteous to
me.

Personally, I've always preferred top-posting. It puts the most
receint information at the top of the post, where it's presented to
the reader without forcing them to scroll down through the whole
thread.

But for clarity's sake, I also tend to follow whatever the heck method
is being used in the thread. Personally, I find if *very* annoying
(and confusing) to try to figure out the thread by people who insist
on following whatever the heck their own personal preference is for
top or bottom posting, or more likely, whatever the heck the
newsreader's preference is!

In other words, people who bottom post to a thread that the rest of
the people top post to are just down right rude.

The reverse is also quite true. People who top post to a thread
that's bottom posted are just down right rude.

It doesn't matter what *your* preference is, or that of your
newsreader. Life is confusing enough without mixed threads. Usenet,
doubly so.
Please Post Any Replies To This Message Back To the Newsgroup.
There are "Lurkers" around who can benefit by our exchange!

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.notwrote in
news:nDr1j.1317$ng.1068@trnddc08:

BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET
"rule" on the issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are
points to be made for and against each approach.

Actually, when I started posting in Usenet (1994), there was no such
thing as top posting -- it was all bottom posting. But shortly
thereafter, Windows Usenet clients started being introduced, and
somebody somewhere along the line thought top posting was
preferable, and that's when I started seeing it.

Personally, I blame it on Microsoft.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

Chuck Grimsby <c.*******@worldnet.att.net.invalidwrote in
news:kt********************************@4ax.com:

In other words, people who bottom post to a thread that the rest
of the people top post to are just down right rude.

I disagree. I *always* bottom post, but when doing it in a
top-posted thread, I convert whatever I'm quoting to bottom-posted
format.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:vT**************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

I do say it's easier for readers, for those who read like me, per
my above note.

It's only easier when people aren't trimming quotes. If quotes are
trimmed, top posting looks very stupid.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:vT**************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

As for your statement that it's easier for the poster, I disagree.
I find it easier to post at the end, when I'm done reading. It's
actually extra work for me to return to the top and place my
comment. So I find that statement to be incorrect at best, but
disengenuous at worst. ;-)

That all depends on your news reader. If it defaults to top posting,
it will be easier to top post. If you prefer to top post, you should
check your news reader's defaults and change them to match your
preferences.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:23:28 -0600, "Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote:

I'm just very surprised there isn't a technical solution for this.
Surely newsreaders can be made smart enough to follow the user's
preferences. Indeed Google News utilizes some technology to suppress
some text it deems superfluous.

-Tom.

>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier for the reader to
see the reply, rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd ask
its members, especially Sir Larry, what the preferred method is (if any).
Here are the links the fellow provided me:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

Thanks,

Neil

[Neil]

My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express. So I have a message window open,
and I can go to the top or the bottom of the quote.
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@66.250.1 46.128...

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:vT**************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

>As for your statement that it's easier for the poster, I disagree.
I find it easier to post at the end, when I'm done reading. It's
actually extra work for me to return to the top and place my
comment. So I find that statement to be incorrect at best, but
disengenuous at worst. ;-)

That all depends on your news reader. If it defaults to top posting,
it will be easier to top post. If you prefer to top post, you should
check your news reader's defaults and change them to match your
preferences.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:O5****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net :

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@66.250.1 46.128...

>"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:vT**************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

>>As for your statement that it's easier for the poster, I
disagree. I find it easier to post at the end, when I'm done
reading. It's actually extra work for me to return to the top
and place my comment. So I find that statement to be incorrect
at best, but disengenuous at worst. ;-)

That all depends on your news reader. If it defaults to top
posting, it will be easier to top post. If you prefer to top
post, you should check your news reader's defaults and change
them to match your preferences.

My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

So I have a message window open,
and I can go to the top or the bottom of the quote.

But where is the cursor in the message window that opens when you
reply? When you're typing, you're not reading, since you've already
read the post (I assume you're smart enough to read the post before
replying?). When you're replying, your newsreader (or in your case,
your broken email client that has been badly adapted to barely
function as a news client) will place the cursor before or after the
quoted material, on the assumption that that's where you'll start
typing your reply. OE defaults to putting the cursor at the top.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

Tom van Stiphout <no*************@cox.netwrote in
news:j5********************************@4ax.com:

I'm just very surprised there isn't a technical solution for this.
Surely newsreaders can be made smart enough to follow the user's
preferences. Indeed Google News utilizes some technology to
suppress some text it deems superfluous.

News readers from 20 years ago offered this kind of control. It's
the latecomers, like the substandard offerings from Microsoft, that
have dropped those features.

My newsreader, xNews, allows me to select a section of a post to
reply to, and quotes everything. It suppresses everything past the
signature delimiter (which is "-- " not just "--", as defined for a
long time in Usenet convention, if not in any RFCs that I know of)
in the quoted material, unless I've specifically selected it to
include. It's a problem when a top poster puts a sig between the
reply and the quotation if I want the poster's quotations to be
included, as it's past the signature delimiter, and thus my
newsreader says "nothing past this delimiter needs to be quoted."
Fortunately, I can highlight the part past the signature delimiter
and get it quoted.

There's a typical problem created by top posting, i.e., making it
harder for news readers to figure out where the signature begins and
the quoted material is located.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Bob Quintal]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:t8****************@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net :

I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't
top-post my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier
for the reader to see the reply, rather than having to go to the
bottom of the previous message. But, since this is the main
newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd ask its members, especially Sir
Larry, what the preferred method is (if any). Here are the links
the fellow provided me:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

Thanks,

Neil

Top posting has several disadvantages. I can jump into a thread at
the third message and read, in chronological sequence, what has been
said, in those groups where top-posting is banned. I can also
archive one message for future reference and have it reasonably
presented, in that I don't have to scroll down to see if the
question is the one I want an answer to.

I know a visually impaired person, who uses a narrator device to
listen to his mail, and he hates Jeopardy posting - Answer first,
then the question, :-)

I come from a time when usenet replies sometimes took days, and
unless the question came first, one often didn't remember what the
trigger to the answer was.

My $0.02.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Keith Wilby]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@66.250.1 46.128...

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:O5****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net :

>>
My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

I think it's perfectly adequate for a very simple task.

[Neil]

>My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

>
Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

:-D I love Outlook Express. Why substandard?

>

>So I have a message window open,
and I can go to the top or the bottom of the quote.

But where is the cursor in the message window that opens when you
reply? When you're typing, you're not reading, since you've already
read the post (I assume you're smart enough to read the post before
replying?).

Oh sh*t! THAT'S what I've been doing wrong! I'm supposed to read *before*
posting??? Sh*t! :-)

When you're replying, your newsreader (or in your case,
your broken email client that has been badly adapted to barely
function as a news client) will place the cursor before or after the
quoted material, on the assumption that that's where you'll start
typing your reply. OE defaults to putting the cursor at the top.

Yes, of course, David, it's at the top. Ctrl+End, it's at the bottom. Not a
big deal either way. That was my point.

[Neil]

"Keith Wilby" <he**@there.comwrote in message
news:47**********@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@66.250.1 46.128...

>"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:O5****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t:

>>>
My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

I think it's perfectly adequate for a very simple task.

Well, maybe I need to explore new heights. I've been very happy with OE for
many years. But if there's something better, I'm all for it. So, tell me:
what do you use?

[Keith Wilby]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:h%**************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .

>
"Keith Wilby" <he**@there.comwrote in message
news:47**********@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

>"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@66.250. 146.128...

>>"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:O5****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.n et:
My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

I think it's perfectly adequate for a very simple task.

Well, maybe I need to explore new heights. I've been very happy with OE
for many years. But if there's something better, I'm all for it. So, tell
me: what do you use?

Erm ... me? I use OE, hence my remark :-)

Keith.

[Salad]

Neil wrote:

>>>My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

:-D I love Outlook Express. Why substandard?

I used OE...once. Which reminds me of the movie Johnny Dangerously and
the character Danny Vermin.

You shouldn't grab me, Johnny. My mother grabbed me once... ONCE!

You shouldn't kick me in the balls, Mrs. Kelly. My sister kicked me in
the balls once... [Stumbles in pain]

You shouldn't hang me on a hook, Johnny. My father hung me on a hook
once. Once!

You shouldn't have shot me, Johnny. My grandmother shot me once...

[Neil]

"Salad" <oi*@vinegar.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

Neil wrote:

>>>>My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

:-D I love Outlook Express. Why substandard?

I used OE...once. Which reminds me of the movie Johnny Dangerously and
the character Danny Vermin.

You shouldn't grab me, Johnny. My mother grabbed me once... ONCE!

You shouldn't kick me in the balls, Mrs. Kelly. My sister kicked me in the
balls once... [Stumbles in pain]

You shouldn't hang me on a hook, Johnny. My father hung me on a hook once.
Once!

You shouldn't have shot me, Johnny. My grandmother shot me once...

OK, well, that was very entertaining. But, apart from what you don't use,
why don't you tell us what you DO use? Thanks.

[Salad]

Neil wrote:

"Salad" <oi*@vinegar.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>>Neil wrote:

>>>>>My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.
:-D I love Outlook Express. Why substandard?

I used OE...once. Which reminds me of the movie Johnny Dangerously and
the character Danny Vermin.

You shouldn't grab me, Johnny. My mother grabbed me once... ONCE!

You shouldn't kick me in the balls, Mrs. Kelly. My sister kicked me in the
balls once... [Stumbles in pain]

You shouldn't hang me on a hook, Johnny. My father hung me on a hook once.
Once!

You shouldn't have shot me, Johnny. My grandmother shot me once...

OK, well, that was very entertaining. But, apart from what you don't use,
why don't you tell us what you DO use? Thanks.

Me? I use an old version of Netscape. It's good for email and
newsgroups. Not so good with the web anymore so I use Firefox. I'd
probably use Forte News Agent when Netscape won't work anymore or else
look at the variety of offering out there and determine what's best for
my needs.

I abandoned OE after trying it...once.

I'm not crazy about graphic style sites like Google. Their search
engine isn't as good as it used to be, too many duplicates of the same
message appear, messages irrelevent to a group I search on are
displayed. I'm not sure what the next best search engine for newsgroups
is tho.

[DavidB]

Form over content is a horrid thing. Thats the whole root of the
terrible concept of HTML in email! The real discussion should be
using "Vs" instead of "v". :)

On Nov 22, 2:23 am, "Neil" <[e-mail]:

I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier for the reader to
see the reply, rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd ask
its members, especially Sir Larry, what the preferred method is (if any).

Here are the links the fellow provided me:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

Thanks,

Neil

[David W. Fenton]

Salad <oi*@vinegar.comwrote in
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com:

I'd
probably use Forte News Agent when Netscape won't work anymore

Try xNews.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Keith Wilby" <he**@there.comwrote in
news:47**********@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@66.250.1 46.128...

>"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:O5****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t:

>>My newsreader? I just use Outlook Express.

Well, that might explain why you are confused, since you're using
substandard tools to post.

I think it's perfectly adequate for a very simple task.

It's an OK email reader, but as a news reader it's definitely
substandard. It lacks basic features that Telnet-based newsreaders
had 20 years ago.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Neil" <no****@nospam.netwrote in
news:h%**************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

So, tell me:
what do you use?

Somewhere along the line in this thread I already noted that I use
xNews, and have done so for a rather long time (since before 2000).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Keith Wilby]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@64.209.0 .94...

"Keith Wilby" <he**@there.comwrote in
news:47**********@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

>I think it's perfectly adequate for a very simple task.

It's an OK email reader, but as a news reader it's definitely
substandard. It lacks basic features that Telnet-based newsreaders
had 20 years ago.

I did use XNews for a while a few years back, I think that and OE are much
of a muchness. No doubt XNews has improved since I last used it.