Why reply at the bottom of posts?

[Donald McDaniel]

Hi Kurt,

I can see his point even though I can't relate. (

What seems to be an annoyance (to only OE users, dunno?) are the msft posts
that come through here (tomcat) with nothing attached.

Top-posting is also inconvient to those of us who use other
newsreaders than Outlook Express, IF the one who top-posts inserts his
signature directly after his post. For example, my newsreader is
Agent 3, which snips out signatures IF they are on the very bottom of
a person's post, but leaves them if they are within the body of his
post.

Bandwidth is no problem for me, since I have a broad-band connection.
However, I do realize (sometimes) that others are still on 28.8kbps
connections. Personally, if I had a connection like that, I wouldn't
even try to download Usenet posts.

While it IS easier to read a person's reply to a post if he top-posts,
and bottom-posting IS a Usenet "convention" (if it were an enforceable
RULE, servers would refuse to post messages with top-posts), as far as
I am concerned, it is up to the other person where he wants to start
his reply. I am not really concerned to the point of bother whether a
person top posts, or bottom posts. I am not so much concerned with
keeping conventions. I prefer to live out my Faith as closelyl as
possible. Part of this is the way I respond to others and treat them
in all my behavior. I know I do not always live up to my own
standards. But I still TRY.

My preferred method of replying to a post is by snipping and inserting
my reply within the body of the post, where I can answer each
individual point the other poster makes. I get lazy from time to
time, however, and usually bottom-post after quoting everything I am
replying to.

In general, I try to add my signature to the BOTTOM of my post.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that conversations may be kept in order
=======================================================

 

[Donald McDaniel]

Oh boy, here we go again. Mention top posting, or criticize eXPerience in
this place and hell hath no fury like an XP-lover scorned.

| Hi,
| I'm just curious as to why so many replies are under the original post
| instead of at the top?
| Personally I find this annoying to have to scroll to the bottom to see the
| latest reply.
| In fact, I usually go on to the next post when I'm just lurking.
|
| What news reader are folks using that does this?
|
| This isn't meant to be a mean spirited question.
|
| / ITinerant
|
|

1) Bottom or Top posting have absolutely NOTHING to do with Windows
XP. Many with XP bottom post, and many with XP Top Post. Please try
to separate the two subjects, since this thread concerns bottom or top
posting, not the OS we are using.
2) Those who bottom post have usually been using the Usenet for a
while, and generally try to conform to Usenet conventions.
3) Those who top post usually are Usenet noobies, or use web-based
newsreaders, or use Outlook Express because that is what is supplied
with the OS. If Outlook Express had a setting to insert signatures at
the bottom, more people would bottom-post.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that conversations may be kept in order
=======================================================

 

[kurttrail]

Top-posting is also inconvient to those of us who use other
newsreaders than Outlook Express, IF the one who top-posts inserts his
signature directly after his post. For example, my newsreader is
Agent 3, which snips out signatures IF they are on the very bottom of
a person's post, but leaves them if they are within the body of his
post.

Bandwidth is no problem for me, since I have a broad-band connection.
However, I do realize (sometimes) that others are still on 28.8kbps
connections. Personally, if I had a connection like that, I wouldn't
even try to download Usenet posts.

While it IS easier to read a person's reply to a post if he top-posts,
and bottom-posting IS a Usenet "convention" (if it were an enforceable
RULE, servers would refuse to post messages with top-posts), as far as
I am concerned, it is up to the other person where he wants to start
his reply. I am not really concerned to the point of bother whether a
person top posts, or bottom posts. I am not so much concerned with
keeping conventions. I prefer to live out my Faith as closelyl as
possible. Part of this is the way I respond to others and treat them
in all my behavior. I know I do not always live up to my own
standards. But I still TRY.

My preferred method of replying to a post is by snipping and inserting
my reply within the body of the post, where I can answer each
individual point the other poster makes. I get lazy from time to
time, however, and usually bottom-post after quoting everything I am
replying to.

In general, I try to add my signature to the BOTTOM of my post.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that conversations may be kept in order
=======================================================

That is a problem with you newsreader. Mine handles it just fine.
Removes the sig, but not the quoted thread.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

1) Bottom or Top posting have absolutely NOTHING to do with Windows
XP. Many with XP bottom post, and many with XP Top Post. Please try
to separate the two subjects, since this thread concerns bottom or top
posting, not the OS we are using.

Actually, it's very much related to OS - as most people that use Windows
also use OE, and since most Windows users have no clue about what the
Internet really is or how to use it, it is a Windows OS issue for the
most part.

You don't see this problem with Unix, Linux, etc.. users, but, those
types don't use Windows as their OS most times and the Usenet clients
provided with the OS are proper Usenet clients.

2) Those who bottom post have usually been using the Usenet for a
while, and generally try to conform to Usenet conventions.

You left out the people that understand how it works after being
presented with the Normal methods and that use non-Windows Usenet
clients. Many people will try and conform to the standards, others are
just to self centered or rude to care.

3) Those who top post usually are Usenet noobies, or use web-based
newsreaders, or use Outlook Express because that is what is supplied
with the OS. If Outlook Express had a setting to insert signatures at
the bottom, more people would bottom-post.

I agree, but many will continue until told how to properly post - and
OE, while it's the plague that made top-posting a norm for Windows
users, will continue to be a plague for Usenet.

 

[Nightowl]

Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote on Mon, 15 Aug 2005:

NightOwl

I am no great fan of continually having to scroll down.. and the
consideration for people like me is where?..

That's a reasonable objection and you shouldn't have to do that if the
poster is replying inline, as I am here or has properly snipped the
previous post(s). People who re-post 10 previous messages just to add 2
lines at the bottom are just plain lazy. Consideration, yes?

The major difference is that while I may respond giving my thoughts on it, I
do not keep going on about it.. I accept that some top post and some bottom
post..

Well, I don't think I keep going on. . . just chime in when the subject
comes up, because I think many OE users do not realise the problem with
the quotes-after-the-signature thing. Other than that, though I find
top-posting amusing because it's back to front, I don't mind what people
do.

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

LOL.. and you are not a Usenet elitist?.. I use the system that I prefer,
and in the course of doing so, I help many people, or at the very least try
to do so.. I do not stand on tradition or ceremony..

I am well versed in the ways of Usenet with Unix and Linux users, as during
my time as a service engineer for the type of machines that ran those Os'es,
I also worked from a Unix machine.. I find your assumptions that all who top
post must be Usenet newbies to be insulting.. I use and work on X86 MS based
operating systems now, and I quite like OE despite some of its shortfalls..

Personally, I think that tradition should give way a little here.. in the
meantime, you are at liberty to stick with and extol the virtues the
traditional methods, but it still does not make them the best way for all
time..

 

[Nightowl]

kurttrail wrote on Tue, 16 Aug 2005:

I really don't see the big deal about the sig and all the previous posts
except the one you are replying to getting snipped automatically.

As a matter of fact, it would seem to be of help keeping post size to a
minimum. Not quoting the whole damned thread would seem to more
respectful of those that have bandwidth limits.

LOL, you have a point, Kurt, and of course people shouldn't be quoting
reams of old messages either. I never quote the whole thread. It's just
when a little bit of context is needed, and if a quote has been cut off
it's not just a matter of cutting and pasting it back in, but of
dickering around with quote levels and such to keep it clear who said
what . . most of the time I've given up bothering, I admit.

I don't know if top-posting with quotes below the sig is unique to the
Microsoft groups, but I've never seen it anywhere else on Usenet

 

[Nightowl]

Kelly wrote on Tue, 16 Aug 2005:

Hi Kurt,

I can see his point even though I can't relate. (

"She" says thank you, Kelly

 

[Nightowl]

kurttrail wrote on Tue, 16 Aug 2005:

I understand what he is complaining about, but it is more that his
newsreader doesn't handle that situation correctly. OE with OE quotefix
took your sig above out but left all of the rest.

I beg your pardon? My newsreader works perfectly correctly, in common
with every other standards-compliant news client, in trimming off
everything that appears below the sig separator.

We should all switch to OE because it is the only program with an add-on
available to get around OE's own broken behaviour? ROFL!

He should be complaining about how his own newsreader works, not about
where those like you put there sig.

*She* merely points out the problem, since people who have never used
anything but OE are probably unaware of it. She is also delighted to
recommend Turnpike 6.05 to anybody

 

[kurttrail]

kurttrail wrote on Tue, 16 Aug 2005:


I beg your pardon? My newsreader works perfectly correctly, in common
with every other standards-compliant news client, in trimming off
everything that appears below the sig separator.

We should all switch to OE because it is the only program with an
add-on available to get around OE's own broken behaviour? ROFL!

No. I suggest you contact the developers of your newsreader to make
them snip sigs while leaving the quoted text, if it is such a PITA to
you. If some add-on to OE, that hasn't been updated in two years, can
do it, it really shouldn't be that much of a big deal.

Sounds like you are giving your newsreader a big break for lazy coding.
Just snipping everything after sig. ROFL!

*She* merely points out the problem, since people who have never used
anything but OE are probably unaware of it. She is also delighted to
recommend Turnpike 6.05 to anybody

Why, if it can't handle snipping sigs properly?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Personally, I think that tradition should give way a little here.. in the
meantime, you are at liberty to stick with and extol the virtues the
traditional methods, but it still does not make them the best way for all
time..

It has given way in the MS groups - as most newbies posting in these
groups have little understanding that they are Usenet and not some form
of email. If this wasn't a Microsoft group in Usenet it would not be
tolerated as much as it is.

Not making them the best? It doesn't make them wrong or improper either.

I guess, rather than question about top/bottom posting the real
questions should have been:

Why do people insist on not following the accepted normal and documented
methods for something that has history of being done a certain way when
there is no valid reason to change it?

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

......... then point me to them.. I can supply a dose of top posting.. lol..

OE users, please forgive what looks to be repetitive use of signatures, but
there are newsreaders out there that don't cope well with my modus
operandi.. this way, even though my OE signature is removed by these
'cowboy' programs , they will at least not forget who I am..

Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User

 

[kurttrail]

It has given way in the MS groups - as most newbies posting in these
groups have little understanding that they are Usenet and not some
form of email. If this wasn't a Microsoft group in Usenet it would
not be tolerated as much as it is.

Not making them the best? It doesn't make them wrong or improper
either.

I guess, rather than question about top/bottom posting the real
questions should have been:

Why do people insist on not following the accepted normal and
documented methods for something that has history of being done a
certain way when there is no valid reason to change it?

When you get you wet dream of a Net Gestapo going, then you won't have
to worry about the reason why some people aren't conformists. Until
then, people will post however they post for whatever reason they see
fit.

Why do you believe in conformity over individual freedom?

Because you are a fascist. You cannot accept that people know what is
better for themselves than who you think is THE authority.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

........ then point me to them.. I can supply a dose of top posting.. lol..

OE users, please forgive what looks to be repetitive use of signatures, but
there are newsreaders out there that don't cope well with my modus
operandi.. this way, even though my OE signature is removed by these
'cowboy' programs , they will at least not forget who I am..

Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User

All Usenet standards indicate that the sig is to be placed below the
double -- marks followed by a space. Sigs are also to be kept to 4 lines
as much as possible.

Having a sig above the sig delimiter violates Usenet posting standards.

 

[kurttrail]

All Usenet standards indicate that the sig is to be placed below the
double -- marks followed by a space. Sigs are also to be kept to 4
lines as much as possible.

Having a sig above the sig delimiter violates Usenet posting
standards.

What standards?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

When you get you wet dream of a Net Gestapo going, then you won't have
to worry about the reason why some people aren't conformists. Until
then, people will post however they post for whatever reason they see
fit.

Why do you believe in conformity over individual freedom?

No freedom is lost by posting properly. You don't lose any rights or any
freedom to participate in something using the "normal" methods and
historically proper ways.

Because you are a fascist. You cannot accept that people know what is
better for themselves than who you think is THE authority.

I don't deny that others find top posting works better for them, and
don't care if top posting works better for them. If I found a valid
reason, out of all of these replies, I would switch myself, but, as the
normal method works, has no problems, and reads properly based on all
the different viewing methods/server retention methods, I see no reason
why following the norm should be objected too.

 

[Leythos]

What standards?

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

"This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited."

"| > What standards?
|
| http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
|
|
|

 

[Leythos]

"This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited."

"| > What standards?
|
| http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Keep going, there are "posting standards" and methods that are older
than most of the people reading this. I just did a quick search and
posted the first link - as you can see, even in 1995 the NORM was
already established.

I just did a search and found thousands of articles on Top Posting and
Signatures in Usenet. I'm sure that if you really cared to learn about
standards that you could have done the simple google search and found
the information yourself. I suspect that you're only interested in
finding another reason to not follow standard/accepted methods that
work.

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

Yawn. Do you have nothing better to do than being a net nanny?


| In article <[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed) says...
| > "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
| > does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
| > memo is unlimited."
| >
| > "| > What standards?
| > |
| > | http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
|
| Keep going, there are "posting standards" and methods that are older
| than most of the people reading this. I just did a quick search and
| posted the first link - as you can see, even in 1995 the NORM was
| already established.
|
| I just did a search and found thousands of articles on Top Posting and
| Signatures in Usenet. I'm sure that if you really cared to learn about
| standards that you could have done the simple google search and found
| the information yourself. I suspect that you're only interested in
| finding another reason to not follow standard/accepted methods that
| work.
|
|
| --
|
| (e-mail address removed)
| remove 999 in order to email me