In message <d3681r$i5c$1@news.ya.com>
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ... I am at the same time curious as to why Microsoft does not address
> this with a nice piece of software that would do all the "netiquette
> processing"?

Since when has Microsoft ever produced a 'nice piece of software'?

Outlook - particularly Express - appears to actively discourage
netiquette.

There are a number of mail and newsreaders around which do encourage
netiquette, by meeting the requirements of GNKSA) Good NetKeeping Seal
of Approval). The only such package, for a Windows platform, of which I
have any knowledge is Gemini -
http://www.intellegit.com/software/gemini/

I have been using the Messenger Pro software, which spawned Gemini, for
many years.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

On 8 Apr 2005 09:15:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:40:43 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, you appear to have opted to snip all the points and avoid
>> them.
>
>Since there isn't anything within them that's germane to my point, I'm
>not going to reply to them. A waste of my time.

Ah, at least you've *admitted* it by saying you've snipped it because
it's not germane to *your* point. My points were strong so you snipped
them. It's typical usenet behaviour, you're not the first, you won't
be the last. For example, you claimed:

"Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
top-posters"

I showed you how this was not true, you couldn't argue against it (hey
- it wasn't germane to *your* point, right...), so you snipped it.

Don't assume that people can't see you doing this.



>> >Since you have replied to each of my points *below* what I had
>> >written you proved my point quite nicely.
>>
>> No haven't whatsoever.
>
>Of course you have.

No, really I haven't. However much you ache to falsely claim this
support, it simply isn't the case.

The idea that me having one preference somehow means that I discount
other people's preferences is quite frankly bizarre and you're not
doing your argument any favours by claiming this. In all walks of
life, multiple preferences exist alongside one another and to choose
and adopt one is *not* to consider any other preference as invalid.


> You used the natural style that follows language
> conventions - invented long before the existence of the
> Roman Empire. Top-to-bottom reading.

Which is of course what happens in the text of a top-posted message,
except the references are supplied below or after - as they often are
in printed text, as footnotes or appendixes.



>In addition, it's accepted usenet etiquette.

By people who prefer it.


> Top-posting isn't.

Of course it is, by people who prefer it.


There doesn't need to be any rules here, just a few different styles.
Get used to learning a few different tricks instead of expecting
everyone to adopt the style that *you* prefer.


andyt

 

On 8 Apr 2005 09:15:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:40:43 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, you appear to have opted to snip all the points and avoid
>> them.
>
>Since there isn't anything within them that's germane to my point, I'm
>not going to reply to them. A waste of my time.

Ah, at least you've *admitted* it by saying you've snipped it because
it's not germane to *your* point. My points were strong so you snipped
them. It's typical usenet behaviour, you're not the first, you won't
be the last. For example, you claimed:

"Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
top-posters"

I showed you how this was not true, you couldn't argue against it (hey
- it wasn't germane to *your* point, right...), so you snipped it.

Don't assume that people can't see you doing this.



>> >Since you have replied to each of my points *below* what I had
>> >written you proved my point quite nicely.
>>
>> No haven't whatsoever.
>
>Of course you have.

No, really I haven't. However much you ache to falsely claim this
support, it simply isn't the case.

The idea that me having one preference somehow means that I discount
other people's preferences is quite frankly bizarre and you're not
doing your argument any favours by claiming this. In all walks of
life, multiple preferences exist alongside one another and to choose
and adopt one is *not* to consider any other preference as invalid.


> You used the natural style that follows language
> conventions - invented long before the existence of the
> Roman Empire. Top-to-bottom reading.

Which is of course what happens in the text of a top-posted message,
except the references are supplied below or after - as they often are
in printed text, as footnotes or appendixes.



>In addition, it's accepted usenet etiquette.

By people who prefer it.


> Top-posting isn't.

Of course it is, by people who prefer it.


There doesn't need to be any rules here, just a few different styles.
Get used to learning a few different tricks instead of expecting
everyone to adopt the style that *you* prefer.


andyt

 

On 8 Apr 2005 09:15:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:40:43 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, you appear to have opted to snip all the points and avoid
>> them.
>
>Since there isn't anything within them that's germane to my point, I'm
>not going to reply to them. A waste of my time.

Ah, at least you've *admitted* it by saying you've snipped it because
it's not germane to *your* point. My points were strong so you snipped
them. It's typical usenet behaviour, you're not the first, you won't
be the last. For example, you claimed:

"Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
top-posters"

I showed you how this was not true, you couldn't argue against it (hey
- it wasn't germane to *your* point, right...), so you snipped it.

Don't assume that people can't see you doing this.



>> >Since you have replied to each of my points *below* what I had
>> >written you proved my point quite nicely.
>>
>> No haven't whatsoever.
>
>Of course you have.

No, really I haven't. However much you ache to falsely claim this
support, it simply isn't the case.

The idea that me having one preference somehow means that I discount
other people's preferences is quite frankly bizarre and you're not
doing your argument any favours by claiming this. In all walks of
life, multiple preferences exist alongside one another and to choose
and adopt one is *not* to consider any other preference as invalid.


> You used the natural style that follows language
> conventions - invented long before the existence of the
> Roman Empire. Top-to-bottom reading.

Which is of course what happens in the text of a top-posted message,
except the references are supplied below or after - as they often are
in printed text, as footnotes or appendixes.



>In addition, it's accepted usenet etiquette.

By people who prefer it.


> Top-posting isn't.

Of course it is, by people who prefer it.


There doesn't need to be any rules here, just a few different styles.
Get used to learning a few different tricks instead of expecting
everyone to adopt the style that *you* prefer.


andyt

 

On 8 Apr 2005 09:11:45 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:48:57 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Andy Turner wrote:
>> >> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read
>from
>> >> >bottom to top.
>> >>
>> >> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made
>for
>> >> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>> >
>> >You are correct.
>>
>> Thankyou.
>
>Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were talking about top-posting, and not
>the quoting part.
>
>Proper quoting is necessary for context. You can call that "reference"
>if you wish, but without quoting, who knows what on earth you're
>replying about?

It's the way in which the sentence in the reply is formed. Remember at
school when they tried to get you to reply in complete sentences? Let
me give you an example. Someone asks the question, "where can I get a
good drill"? An answer that requires context would be "B&Q have them",
whereas a reply that doesn't require context would be "I was in B&Q
the other day, and they've got loads of drills, I'd recommend you go
there".

Y'see the difference? That how people know "what on earth you're
replying about".



>Not everyone everywhere runs a threaded newsreader, you know.

Yeah, and not everyone prefers bottom posting. You can't have it both
ways...



>> > Top-posting is about being lazy and ignoring
>> > conventions of language.
>>
>> Given that the quotes are provided for reference (as you've already
>> acknowledged, above), which conventions of language does it ignore,
>> and in which way is it lazy?
>
>Lazy because top-posters *rarely* trim any of the previous stuff out,

Granted, top-posting has a propensity to create trimming issues, but
then you should realise that your beef is with trimming, not
top-posting - if that's what you want to argue.


>and because they can't be arsed to move the cursor to make their
>replies.

It's not a case of not being arsed, it's a case of it not being
relevant to the style.



>Since nobody reads from bottom to top, it ignores that language
>convention.

But a top-post *doesn't* require you to read from bottom to top does
it - the quote is there for reference, not context. The new text
placed at the top is clearly read in top down fashion, just that the
reference is supplied below - as they often are in books (as
footnotes).


>> I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
>> avoid all their points as you did with my other post.
>
>They were not germane to the discussion.

You mean they were not germane to *your* point of view, so you snipped
them all. They were strong points which flattened your stance - hence
the snip. Perhaps I'll ask you this again, since you clearly wanted to
avoid answering it:

"Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?"



>> >Your reply BELOW mine (correct-bottom posting) proves my point.
>>
>> It doesn't prove it whatsoever...
>
>Of course it does. If top-posting were OK, then you'd just post over
>what you were replying to -

You have the strangest logic my friend! Top posting *is* OK, but that
doesn't mean it has to be my preferred style. In all walks of life,
multiple preferences exist together.

Or are you really this bigoted in real life - such that any preference
that is not your own is wrong?



> but since you reply BELOW the quoted text,
> you obviously prefer bottom-posting.

Wrong, I *actually* prefer interleaved posting, not bottom posting -
as my posts clearly show.



andyt

 

On 8 Apr 2005 09:11:45 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:48:57 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Andy Turner wrote:
>> >> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read
>from
>> >> >bottom to top.
>> >>
>> >> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made
>for
>> >> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>> >
>> >You are correct.
>>
>> Thankyou.
>
>Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were talking about top-posting, and not
>the quoting part.
>
>Proper quoting is necessary for context. You can call that "reference"
>if you wish, but without quoting, who knows what on earth you're
>replying about?

It's the way in which the sentence in the reply is formed. Remember at
school when they tried to get you to reply in complete sentences? Let
me give you an example. Someone asks the question, "where can I get a
good drill"? An answer that requires context would be "B&Q have them",
whereas a reply that doesn't require context would be "I was in B&Q
the other day, and they've got loads of drills, I'd recommend you go
there".

Y'see the difference? That how people know "what on earth you're
replying about".



>Not everyone everywhere runs a threaded newsreader, you know.

Yeah, and not everyone prefers bottom posting. You can't have it both
ways...



>> > Top-posting is about being lazy and ignoring
>> > conventions of language.
>>
>> Given that the quotes are provided for reference (as you've already
>> acknowledged, above), which conventions of language does it ignore,
>> and in which way is it lazy?
>
>Lazy because top-posters *rarely* trim any of the previous stuff out,

Granted, top-posting has a propensity to create trimming issues, but
then you should realise that your beef is with trimming, not
top-posting - if that's what you want to argue.


>and because they can't be arsed to move the cursor to make their
>replies.

It's not a case of not being arsed, it's a case of it not being
relevant to the style.



>Since nobody reads from bottom to top, it ignores that language
>convention.

But a top-post *doesn't* require you to read from bottom to top does
it - the quote is there for reference, not context. The new text
placed at the top is clearly read in top down fashion, just that the
reference is supplied below - as they often are in books (as
footnotes).


>> I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
>> avoid all their points as you did with my other post.
>
>They were not germane to the discussion.

You mean they were not germane to *your* point of view, so you snipped
them all. They were strong points which flattened your stance - hence
the snip. Perhaps I'll ask you this again, since you clearly wanted to
avoid answering it:

"Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?"



>> >Your reply BELOW mine (correct-bottom posting) proves my point.
>>
>> It doesn't prove it whatsoever...
>
>Of course it does. If top-posting were OK, then you'd just post over
>what you were replying to -

You have the strangest logic my friend! Top posting *is* OK, but that
doesn't mean it has to be my preferred style. In all walks of life,
multiple preferences exist together.

Or are you really this bigoted in real life - such that any preference
that is not your own is wrong?



> but since you reply BELOW the quoted text,
> you obviously prefer bottom-posting.

Wrong, I *actually* prefer interleaved posting, not bottom posting -
as my posts clearly show.



andyt

 

On 8 Apr 2005 09:11:45 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:48:57 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Andy Turner wrote:
>> >> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read
>from
>> >> >bottom to top.
>> >>
>> >> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made
>for
>> >> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>> >
>> >You are correct.
>>
>> Thankyou.
>
>Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were talking about top-posting, and not
>the quoting part.
>
>Proper quoting is necessary for context. You can call that "reference"
>if you wish, but without quoting, who knows what on earth you're
>replying about?

It's the way in which the sentence in the reply is formed. Remember at
school when they tried to get you to reply in complete sentences? Let
me give you an example. Someone asks the question, "where can I get a
good drill"? An answer that requires context would be "B&Q have them",
whereas a reply that doesn't require context would be "I was in B&Q
the other day, and they've got loads of drills, I'd recommend you go
there".

Y'see the difference? That how people know "what on earth you're
replying about".



>Not everyone everywhere runs a threaded newsreader, you know.

Yeah, and not everyone prefers bottom posting. You can't have it both
ways...



>> > Top-posting is about being lazy and ignoring
>> > conventions of language.
>>
>> Given that the quotes are provided for reference (as you've already
>> acknowledged, above), which conventions of language does it ignore,
>> and in which way is it lazy?
>
>Lazy because top-posters *rarely* trim any of the previous stuff out,

Granted, top-posting has a propensity to create trimming issues, but
then you should realise that your beef is with trimming, not
top-posting - if that's what you want to argue.


>and because they can't be arsed to move the cursor to make their
>replies.

It's not a case of not being arsed, it's a case of it not being
relevant to the style.



>Since nobody reads from bottom to top, it ignores that language
>convention.

But a top-post *doesn't* require you to read from bottom to top does
it - the quote is there for reference, not context. The new text
placed at the top is clearly read in top down fashion, just that the
reference is supplied below - as they often are in books (as
footnotes).


>> I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
>> avoid all their points as you did with my other post.
>
>They were not germane to the discussion.

You mean they were not germane to *your* point of view, so you snipped
them all. They were strong points which flattened your stance - hence
the snip. Perhaps I'll ask you this again, since you clearly wanted to
avoid answering it:

"Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?"



>> >Your reply BELOW mine (correct-bottom posting) proves my point.
>>
>> It doesn't prove it whatsoever...
>
>Of course it does. If top-posting were OK, then you'd just post over
>what you were replying to -

You have the strangest logic my friend! Top posting *is* OK, but that
doesn't mean it has to be my preferred style. In all walks of life,
multiple preferences exist together.

Or are you really this bigoted in real life - such that any preference
that is not your own is wrong?



> but since you reply BELOW the quoted text,
> you obviously prefer bottom-posting.

Wrong, I *actually* prefer interleaved posting, not bottom posting -
as my posts clearly show.



andyt

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> I am at the
> same time curious as to why Microsoft does not address this with a
nice
> piece of software that would do all the "netiquette processing"?

I suppose that they expect you to use your own noggin a little bit. Or
they think whatever is good for e-mail makes sense for usenet.

> Well, if you happen to strike gold in that arena, remember whose idea
it was
> first!

Not your's, unfortunately.

Here ya go:

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html

You're welcome.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> I am at the
> same time curious as to why Microsoft does not address this with a
nice
> piece of software that would do all the "netiquette processing"?

I suppose that they expect you to use your own noggin a little bit. Or
they think whatever is good for e-mail makes sense for usenet.

> Well, if you happen to strike gold in that arena, remember whose idea
it was
> first!

Not your's, unfortunately.

Here ya go:

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html

You're welcome.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> I am at the
> same time curious as to why Microsoft does not address this with a
nice
> piece of software that would do all the "netiquette processing"?

I suppose that they expect you to use your own noggin a little bit. Or
they think whatever is good for e-mail makes sense for usenet.

> Well, if you happen to strike gold in that arena, remember whose idea
it was
> first!

Not your's, unfortunately.

Here ya go:

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html

You're welcome.

E.P.