top post

In article <f9**********@news4.fe.internet.bosch.com>,
Ravishankar S <s.***********@de.bosch.comwrote:
....

>- Thanks Jens. Quite simple ha ! In other news groups, they didnt bother
about the way I posted..!

The participants in other newsgroups have these things called "lives".

Aug 13 '07 #7

Ivar Rosquist said:

<snip>

What is interesting is there seems to be a meme whereby top-
posting is intrisically bad, to be avoided at all costs.

No, not really. It is *thoughtlessness* that is to be avoided at all
costs.

Organising an article takes a little thought. If you have something to
say that is not part of a direct reply to something another person has
written, whether you place it at the top or the bottom of your article
is really a matter of common sense. It might be more helpful to your
readers to read it first (before your point-by-point reply), or
afterwards (i.e. after the point-by-point).

But a reply that addresses a particular piece of text should quote that
piece of text and follow the quotation. Any piece of text not being
addressed should be replaced by <snipmarks.

If the whole of the reply is addressed to the text as a whole rather
than to a particular part of it, then the whole text should be removed,
and a short, fair summary of it placed at the top of the article, with
the reply underneath it.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Aug 13 '07 #8

Ivar Rosquist

I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Aug 13 '07 #9

Mark Bluemel

Ivar Rosquist wrote:

I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Imagine, if you will, that I have just recently subscribed to this
newsgroup. I see that there is a thread on this subject, which interests
me, so I download headers, starting from yours.

What can I understand of this discussion?

Whether you top post (which I believe is rarely, if ever, appropriate)
or you intersperse your replies appropriately intermixed with the
relevant portions of the post to which you are responding, I think it is
good practice to quote sufficient of the post that your response makes
sense even if the rest of the thread is not visible.

Aug 13 '07 #10

Thad Smith

Ravishankar S wrote:

"Jens Thoms Toerring" <jt@toerring.dewrote in message
news:5i*************@mid.uni-berlin.de...

>>Ravishankar S <s.***********@de.bosch.comwrote:

>>>would any kind soul explain what is top posting

....

>>It would be top-posting if I would put my answer above your question
instead of below it. See also for example

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

....

- Thanks Jens. Quite simple ha ! In other news groups, they didnt bother
about the way I posted..!

I suspect that the reason is three-fold:

1. This, and several other technically-oriented groups have a tradition
going back to the early days of Usenet in which people were much more
concerned over bandwidth and made a conscious effort to conserve it.

2. Techies pay more attention to this sort of detail than others.

3. It has become sort of a not-so-secret handshake which identifies
those who know the etiquette.

I find it maddening to read digested mail lists on other topics in which
someone replies, with the entire article to which they are replying at
the bottom, then someone replies, in similar manner, to that message,
etc. The result is that the messages get longer and longer while the
original post is repeated _ad nauseum_, significantly making it harder
to find original content.

Welcome to comp.lang.c.

--
Thad

Aug 13 '07 #11

John Smith

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <f9**********@news4.fe.internet.bosch.com>,
Ravishankar S <s.***********@de.bosch.comwrote:
...

>>- Thanks Jens. Quite simple ha ! In other news groups, they didnt bother
about the way I posted..!

The participants in other newsgroups have these things called "lives".

Kenny, what do *you* do when you're not reading c.l.c. ?

JS

Aug 13 '07 #12

Richard

Ivar Rosquist <IR*******@irq.orgwrites:

I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Personally I find it best to ignore all but the worst repeat offenders
of top posting as most people pick it up as they go along and learn by
example and reading repeated juvenile attacks on top posters is, simply,
boring to the extreme.

Aug 13 '07 #13

Kenneth Brody

Richard wrote:

>
Ivar Rosquist <IR*******@irq.orgwrites:

I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Personally I find it best to ignore all but the worst repeat offenders
of top posting as most people pick it up as they go along and learn by
example and reading repeated juvenile attacks on top posters is, simply,
boring to the extreme.

I sometimes "fix" short top-posted messages in my reply, prefacing my
reply with "top-posting corrected", or "top-posting corrected again".
If I reach "top-posting corrected again again", I'm not likely to
reply any further as they're obviously just not getting it.

(Unfortunately, some people at work whom I can't simply ignore are
among those who "just don't get it". And their e-mail client doesn't
help matters by defaulting to "improperly quote everything and place
the cursor at the top".)

<mode tongue="in cheek">
I think the e-mail client is written in C. Doesn't that mean that
this is on-topic?
</mode>

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Aug 13 '07 #14

Kenneth Brody

Thad Smith wrote:
[...]

I find it maddening to read digested mail lists on other topics in which
someone replies, with the entire article to which they are replying at
the bottom, then someone replies, in similar manner, to that message,
etc. The result is that the messages get longer and longer while the
original post is repeated _ad nauseum_, significantly making it harder
to find original content.

What's worse are those who use the unmarked-quoting programs (you
know the ones -- they don't use ">" or any other marker, the just
put something like "--- original message --" at the top) and then
inline post. There is nothing to distinguish the quoted text and
the new text. (Don't tell me it doesn't happen. I've seen it way
too often.)

Welcome to comp.lang.c.

If you think clc is pedantic, you should try alt.sysadmin.recovery
if you think you have a thick enough skin.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Aug 13 '07 #15

Kenneth Brody said:

<snip>

(Unfortunately, some people at work whom I can't simply ignore are
among those who "just don't get it". And their e-mail client doesn't
help matters by defaulting to "improperly quote everything and place
the cursor at the top".)

I used to think this was incorrect behaviour too, but I've heard an
intriguing counter-argument, to the effect that the entire article is
quoted because the client doesn't know what you want to quote - which
is surely fair enough - and then the cursor is placed at the top so
that you can proceed through the text from top to bottom, deciding at
each step what to snip and what to quote and reply to. That's certainly
a workable way to write a reply, and it can reasonably be said that
working that way round reduces the risk of accidental over-quoting. (It
is definitely the case that I sometimes over-quote in error, so I am
considering telling my client to place the cursor at the top of a
reply, at least on a trial basis.)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Aug 13 '07 #16

Flash Gordon

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 13/08/07 17:51:

Kenneth Brody said:

<snip>

>(Unfortunately, some people at work whom I can't simply ignore are
among those who "just don't get it". And their e-mail client doesn't
help matters by defaulting to "improperly quote everything and place
the cursor at the top".)

I used to think this was incorrect behaviour too, but I've heard an
intriguing counter-argument, to the effect that the entire article is
quoted because the client doesn't know what you want to quote - which
is surely fair enough - and then the cursor is placed at the top so
that you can proceed through the text from top to bottom, deciding at
each step what to snip and what to quote and reply to. That's certainly
a workable way to write a reply,

Agreed. However, at least one program that does this puts a couple of
blank lines at the top suggesting to people that is where the text
should go and, if you have a sig set up puts *that* just above the
quoted material just to make sure you get it wrong.

and it can reasonably be said that
working that way round reduces the risk of accidental over-quoting. (It
is definitely the case that I sometimes over-quote in error, so I am
considering telling my client to place the cursor at the top of a
reply, at least on a trial basis.)

It takes me so little time to get to either top or bottom of a post in
the editor that it does not bother me where the cursor starts.
--
Flash Gordon

Aug 13 '07 #17

Chris Saunders

I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion. However, I
consider the advise given below to be good advice except for the part about
replying below. If following a thread, I find top-posted or interspersed
responses much preferable. My 2 pennies worth.

Regards
Chris Saunders

No, not really. It is *thoughtlessness* that is to be avoided at all
costs.

Organising an article takes a little thought. If you have something to
say that is not part of a direct reply to something another person has
written, whether you place it at the top or the bottom of your article
is really a matter of common sense. It might be more helpful to your
readers to read it first (before your point-by-point reply), or
afterwards (i.e. after the point-by-point).

But a reply that addresses a particular piece of text should quote that
piece of text and follow the quotation. Any piece of text not being
addressed should be replaced by <snipmarks.

If the whole of the reply is addressed to the text as a whole rather
than to a particular part of it, then the whole text should be removed,
and a short, fair summary of it placed at the top of the article, with
the reply underneath it.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

Aug 13 '07 #18

In article <fl************@homelinux.net>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>Ivar Rosquist <IR*******@irq.orgwrites:

> I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Personally I find it best to ignore all but the worst repeat offenders
of top posting as most people pick it up as they go along and learn by
example and reading repeated juvenile attacks on top posters is, simply,
boring to the extreme.

Of *course* it is boring, but that is what we do here. It is what we do.

Think of poor, misguided Default Loser. If it weren't for top posters,
he'd have no life at all. You wouldn't want to be responsibe for that,
would you?

Aug 13 '07 #19

Mark McIntyre

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:53:28 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Ravishankar S"
<s.***********@de.bosch.comwrote:

> Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de

- Thanks Jens. Quite simple ha ! In other news groups, they didnt bother
about the way I posted..!

The other thing you should do is to remove "signatures" - thats
anything after the "-- " above. Your newsreader should do that
automatically, if not - you need to change newsreaders!

>

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

Aug 13 '07 #20

Al Balmer

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:51:07 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Kenneth Brody said:

<snip>

>(Unfortunately, some people at work whom I can't simply ignore are
among those who "just don't get it". And their e-mail client doesn't
help matters by defaulting to "improperly quote everything and place
the cursor at the top".)

I used to think this was incorrect behaviour too, but I've heard an
intriguing counter-argument, to the effect that the entire article is
quoted because the client doesn't know what you want to quote - which
is surely fair enough - and then the cursor is placed at the top so
that you can proceed through the text from top to bottom, deciding at
each step what to snip and what to quote and reply to. That's certainly
a workable way to write a reply, and it can reasonably be said that
working that way round reduces the risk of accidental over-quoting.

By replacing it with deliberate over-quoting, which many people don't
bother to trim at all? Defaulting to quoting nothing would probably
reduce the risk of overquoting ;-)

>(It
is definitely the case that I sometimes over-quote in error, so I am
considering telling my client to place the cursor at the top of a
reply, at least on a trial basis.)

My client, by default, quotes everything and puts the cursor at the
top. It doesn't really matter - it's a GUI client, and I swipe to
delete, and click where I want to reply. It wouldn't really matter if
the cursor started at the bottom.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

Aug 13 '07 #21

Al Balmer

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:23:14 GMT, John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrote:

>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <f9**********@news4.fe.internet.bosch.com>,
Ravishankar S <s.***********@de.bosch.comwrote:
...

>>>- Thanks Jens. Quite simple ha ! In other news groups, they didnt bother
about the way I posted..!

The participants in other newsgroups have these things called "lives".

Kenny, what do *you* do when you're not reading c.l.c. ?

Let me guess - he trolls other newsgroups, too?

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

Aug 13 '07 #22

gw7rib

On 13 Aug, 14:20, Richard <rgr...@gmail.comwrote:

Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@irq.orgwrites:
I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Personally I find it best to ignore all but the worst repeat offenders
of top posting as most people pick it up as they go along and learn by
example and reading repeated juvenile attacks on top posters is, simply,
boring to the extreme.

Even more depressing is reading posts by people who say "don't top
post" but don't say what top posting is. The next response is almost
always the same person again, asking "what is top posting?" - in a top
posted reply.

Aug 13 '07 #23

Keith Thompson

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Kenneth Brody said:
<snip>
>(Unfortunately, some people at work whom I can't simply ignore are
among those who "just don't get it". And their e-mail client doesn't
help matters by defaulting to "improperly quote everything and place
the cursor at the top".)

I used to think this was incorrect behaviour too, but I've heard an
intriguing counter-argument, to the effect that the entire article is
quoted because the client doesn't know what you want to quote - which
is surely fair enough - and then the cursor is placed at the top so
that you can proceed through the text from top to bottom, deciding at
each step what to snip and what to quote and reply to. That's certainly
a workable way to write a reply, and it can reasonably be said that
working that way round reduces the risk of accidental over-quoting. (It
is definitely the case that I sometimes over-quote in error, so I am
considering telling my client to place the cursor at the top of a
reply, at least on a trial basis.)

I just noticed that my own newsreader (Gnus) does exactly this: it
quotes the entire article and puts the cursor above the quoted text.
It also quotes the signature. (I'm sure it can be configured to do
anything I want.)

It's never bothered me because I almost automatically delete
irrelevant text, including the signature, and start my reply at the
bottom. And I suppose it would be a little less convenient for me if
it put the cursor at the bottom, so I'd have to go back up to trim the
quotation.

It's certainly possible to post properly, even with a newsreader that
encourages you to post improperly. It's just a matter of education
(and, failing that, filtering).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Aug 13 '07 #24

Keith Thompson

John Smith <JS****@mail.netwrites:

Kenny McCormack wrote:

[snip]

>
Kenny, what do *you* do when you're not reading c.l.c. ?

Please don't feed the troll.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Aug 13 '07 #25

Ivar Rosquist wrote:

I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to
condemn top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting
were something intrinsically evil.

As one of the frequent "netcops" here, I say to you, "tough". The
quicker peoople learn the correct way to post (and in my view
top-posting is NEVER correct) the better.

As such, I've devised a standardized message that I post whenever I see
an instance of top-posting that hasn't already been addressed. If I
have no other comment on the post, I add the string "- TPA" to the
subject, which allows regluars to filter these.

The message, which I think is succinct, informative, and polite is:

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

Brian

Aug 13 '07 #26

Richard

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>Kenneth Brody said:
<snip>
>>(Unfortunately, some people at work whom I can't simply ignore are
among those who "just don't get it". And their e-mail client doesn't
help matters by defaulting to "improperly quote everything and place
the cursor at the top".)

I used to think this was incorrect behaviour too, but I've heard an
intriguing counter-argument, to the effect that the entire article is
quoted because the client doesn't know what you want to quote - which
is surely fair enough - and then the cursor is placed at the top so
that you can proceed through the text from top to bottom, deciding at
each step what to snip and what to quote and reply to. That's certainly
a workable way to write a reply, and it can reasonably be said that
working that way round reduces the risk of accidental over-quoting. (It
is definitely the case that I sometimes over-quote in error, so I am
considering telling my client to place the cursor at the top of a
reply, at least on a trial basis.)

I just noticed that my own newsreader (Gnus) does exactly this: it
quotes the entire article and puts the cursor above the quoted text.
It also quotes the signature. (I'm sure it can be configured to do
anything I want.)

This is interesting:

http://www.neilvandyke.org/sigbegone/

and, more importantly in your .gnus.el :

;; when replying we dont want to include peoples signatures.
(setq message-cite-function 'message-cite-original-without-signature)

Aug 13 '07 #27

Richard

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:

Ivar Rosquist wrote:

>I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to
condemn top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting
were something intrinsically evil.

As one of the frequent "netcops" here, I say to you, "tough". The
quicker peoople learn the correct way to post (and in my view
top-posting is NEVER correct) the better.

People care about general opinion . And with a little gentle prompting
people do pick up the group methods. You are not a group appointed guard
against evil top posters.

>
As such, I've devised a standardized message that I post whenever I see
an instance of top-posting that hasn't already been addressed. If I
have no other comment on the post, I add the string "- TPA" to the
subject, which allows regluars to filter these.

That's big and clever of you. Maybe you could advise all the other
netcops to do the same otherwise it's a bit of a waste of time don't you
think?

>
The message, which I think is succinct, informative, and polite is:

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

Or you could ignore the post and ONLY when you reply with some
**pertinent** answer to the OP's question could you possibly suggest not
top posting. Gratuitous replies containing ONLY netcop blather are a
waste of everyones time.

Aug 13 '07 #28

Keith Thompson

Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrites:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

[...]

>I just noticed that my own newsreader (Gnus) does exactly this: it
quotes the entire article and puts the cursor above the quoted text.
It also quotes the signature. (I'm sure it can be configured to do
anything I want.)

This is interesting:

http://www.neilvandyke.org/sigbegone/

and, more importantly in your .gnus.el :

;; when replying we dont want to include peoples signatures.
(setq message-cite-function 'message-cite-original-without-signature)

Thanks, but I'm not going to bother. I almost always delete part of
the previous message anyway; deleting the signature as well isn't a
burden. And it would make it more difficult in those rare cases where
I actually do want to comment on something in the signature.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Aug 13 '07 #29

Al Balmer

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:17:44 -0400, "Chris Saunders"
<ev**@mountaincable.netwrote:

>I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion. However, I
consider the advise given below to be good advice except for the part about
replying below. If following a thread, I find top-posted or interspersed
responses much preferable. My 2 pennies worth.

I think, for most people here, "Don't top-post" does *not* mean
"bottom-post." If you had interspersed your reply, as most recommend,
you might have discovered that Richard was saying that, in his second
paragraph. In addition, neither you nor I would be confused about your
reference to "the part about replying below." I've left Richard's
message so that you can easily contemplate where your comments should
have gone.

>
Regards
Chris Saunders

>No, not really. It is *thoughtlessness* that is to be avoided at all
costs.

Organising an article takes a little thought. If you have something to
say that is not part of a direct reply to something another person has
written, whether you place it at the top or the bottom of your article
is really a matter of common sense. It might be more helpful to your
readers to read it first (before your point-by-point reply), or
afterwards (i.e. after the point-by-point).

But a reply that addresses a particular piece of text should quote that
piece of text and follow the quotation. Any piece of text not being
addressed should be replaced by <snipmarks.

If the whole of the reply is addressed to the text as a whole rather
than to a particular part of it, then the whole text should be removed,
and a short, fair summary of it placed at the top of the article, with
the reply underneath it.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

Aug 13 '07 #30

Chris Saunders wrote:

I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion.
However, I consider the advise given below to be good advice except
for the part about replying below. If following a thread, I find
top-posted or interspersed responses much preferable. My 2 pennies
worth.

*plonk*
Brian

Aug 13 '07 #31

gw****@aol.com wrote:

Even more depressing is reading posts by people who say "don't top
post" but don't say what top posting is. The next response is almost
always the same person again, asking "what is top posting?" - in a top
posted reply.

I agree with that. Often the offender is confused and thinks it refers
to where the post appears in the thread.

Brian

Aug 13 '07 #32

In article <5i*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Chris Saunders wrote:

>I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion.
However, I consider the advise given below to be good advice except
for the part about replying below. If following a thread, I find
top-posted or interspersed responses much preferable. My 2 pennies
worth.

*plonk*
Brian

Awwww. Now you've gone and hurt his feelings. Sob...

Aug 13 '07 #33

pete

Default User wrote:

>
gw****@aol.com wrote:

Even more depressing is reading posts by people who say "don't top
post" but don't say what top posting is. The next response is almost
always the same person again,
asking "what is top posting?" - in a top
posted reply.

I agree with that. Often the offender is confused and thinks it refers
to where the post appears in the thread.

I have noticed it happening a lot, also.

--
pete

Aug 13 '07 #34

Richard

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:

Chris Saunders wrote:

>I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion.
However, I consider the advise given below to be good advice except
for the part about replying below. If following a thread, I find
top-posted or interspersed responses much preferable. My 2 pennies
worth.

*plonk*
Brian

You are outdoing yourself with your wonderful contribution. Well done!

Aug 13 '07 #35

Chris Saunders said:

I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion.
However, I consider the advise given below

....to be in a place that isn't *HERE*, so I have to go look for it
elsewhere before I can find out what you mean. That costs me time that
you could easily have saved me. I deduce that your reply was
thoughtless and inconsiderate. It doesn't earn you a plonk, not by
itself, but it certainly mods you down.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Aug 14 '07 #36

Walter Roberson

In article <pa*********************@irq.org>,
Ivar Rosquist <IR*******@irq.orgwrote:

> I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to condemn
top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting were something
intrinsically evil.

Top-posting is inherently *selfish* -- it assumes that people are
focused on that particular thread and have seen and remembered
what has gone before. It might be fine for people who only read
the occasional posting, but it is unworkable for busy people
with many different things to track, especially for busy people who
read hundreds of messages a day.

I've been hitting over 5000 threads per day lately: if -you- had
listened to 5000 different conversations today, and another 5000
tomorrow, and two days from now someone went ahead and continued one of
the conversations as if there hadn't been any interruption, would -you-
be able to pick up immediately, or would you have to say, "Hold on!
Give me the background context to this before you start in on the
continuation!" ?

What kind of people read hundreds or thousands of messages a day
(and understand them)? Oddly enough, such people tend to be the
people with a lot of experience -- exactly the kind of person you
hope might answer questions or provide a clarification/correction
if one is necessary. So if you hope that the experienced posters
will contribute to a thread if warranted, then you should make it
easy for them to do so -- by *not* top-posting!

--
I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim.
-- Christopher Priest

Aug 14 '07 #37

In article <iy************@homelinux.net>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:

>Chris Saunders wrote:

>>I'm top-posting, but not being thoughtless in my own opinion.
However, I consider the advise given below to be good advice except
for the part about replying below. If following a thread, I find
top-posted or interspersed responses much preferable. My 2 pennies
worth.

*plonk*
Brian

You are outdoing yourself with your wonderful contribution. Well done!

This is the A-material, guys. For Mr. Default Loser, it don't get any
better than this!

Aug 14 '07 #38

Chris Saunders

I was not interpreting the message I included in my post as meaning
"bottom-post". I didn't intersperse my reply as I considered it unneccesary
since it was short and if you have been following this thread you may have
already known its contents.

Regards
Chris Saunders

"Al Balmer" <al******@att.netwrote in message
news:mk********************************@4ax.com...

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:17:44 -0400, "Chris Saunders"
<ev**@mountaincable.netwrote:

I think, for most people here, "Don't top-post" does *not* mean
"bottom-post." If you had interspersed your reply, as most recommend,
you might have discovered that Richard was saying that, in his second
paragraph. In addition, neither you nor I would be confused about your
reference to "the part about replying below." I've left Richard's
message so that you can easily contemplate where your comments should
have gone.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

Aug 14 '07 #39

Chris Saunders

Top-posting is certainly not inherently selfish - some consider it
preferable. If you view a large number of newsgroups you will find plenty
wher it is the most common form.

Regards
Chris Saunders

Top-posting is inherently *selfish* -- it assumes that people are
focused on that particular thread and have seen and remembered
what has gone before. It might be fine for people who only read
the occasional posting, but it is unworkable for busy people
with many different things to track, especially for busy people who
read hundreds of messages a day.

I've been hitting over 5000 threads per day lately: if -you- had
listened to 5000 different conversations today, and another 5000
tomorrow, and two days from now someone went ahead and continued one of
the conversations as if there hadn't been any interruption, would -you-
be able to pick up immediately, or would you have to say, "Hold on!
Give me the background context to this before you start in on the
continuation!" ?

What kind of people read hundreds or thousands of messages a day
(and understand them)? Oddly enough, such people tend to be the
people with a lot of experience -- exactly the kind of person you
hope might answer questions or provide a clarification/correction
if one is necessary. So if you hope that the experienced posters
will contribute to a thread if warranted, then you should make it
easy for them to do so -- by *not* top-posting!

Aug 14 '07 #40

Chris Saunders said:

Top-posting is certainly not inherently selfish

It is, for reasons explained already. A point by point response makes it
easier to see which part of the reply relates to which part of the
quoted material, and thus it takes less time to read such a response
than a top-posted reply.

One should write with consideration for one's readership, or one will
find that one's articles are read by fewer and fewer people. You
yourself are discovering this, since you've already been plonked by at
least one regular contributor to this group (which means he won't see
any of your future questions about C, and thus will not respond to
them). Your problem, not his.

- some consider it
preferable. If you view a large number of newsgroups you will find
plenty wher it is the most common form.

And we should eat horse manure, too - after all, ten trillion flies
can't be wrong.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Aug 14 '07 #41

Ravishankar S

- Thanks Jens. Quite simple ha ! In other news groups, they didnt bother
about the way I posted..!

The other thing you should do is to remove "signatures" - thats
anything after the "-- " above. Your newsreader should do that
automatically, if not - you need to change newsreaders!

--
Mark McIntyre

To top-post or to not, that is the question.
Its similar to many other things "good" , but with inidividual preferences.
A new comer will pick up these one by one.

Aug 14 '07 #42

Chris Saunders wrote:

>
Top-posting is certainly not inherently selfish - some consider it
preferable. If you view a large number of newsgroups you will find
plenty wher it is the most common form.

PLONK.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Aug 14 '07 #43

Default User wrote:

gw****@aol.com wrote:

>Even more depressing is reading posts by people who say "don't
top post" but don't say what top posting is. The next response
is almost always the same person again, asking "what is top
posting?" - in a top posted reply.

I agree with that. Often the offender is confused and thinks it
refers to where the post appears in the thread.

Well, when I complain I include some links to descriptive URLs.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

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

Aug 14 '07 #44

Ivar Rosquist wrote:

>
I agree with your views on this. What I don't like are the self-
appointed network policemen, whose kneejerk reaction is just to
condemn top posting, without qualifications, as though top-posting
were something intrinsically evil.

Which it is. It disturbs the continuity of the reply, it
discourages proper snipping, etc. etc.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

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

Aug 14 '07 #45

Ravishankar S wrote:

>
would any kind soul explain what is top posting, since i dont have
www access. to reply to a post, i open it in the outlook express and
click reply group and that's all. what the top posting all about..?

Just read the following URLs. Or you could just read the message
below, which should give you the idea.

Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:

--
<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)

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

Aug 14 '07 #46