On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Dennis W wrote:
>
>> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>
>Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>"netiquette".
>
>It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.

Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.

One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.



andyt

 

On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Dennis W wrote:
>
>> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>
>Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>"netiquette".
>
>It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.

Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.

One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.



andyt

 

On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Dennis W wrote:
>
>> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>
>Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>"netiquette".
>
>It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.

Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.

One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.



andyt

 

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.


> 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?

I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
avoid all their points as you did with my other post.


>Your reply BELOW mine (correct-bottom posting) proves my point.

It doesn't prove it whatsoever, it just shows what preference *I*
happen to have. However, it *does* speak volumes that you're trying to
claim support for your point in such a clearly false and untrue
manner.


andyt

 

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.


> 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?

I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
avoid all their points as you did with my other post.


>Your reply BELOW mine (correct-bottom posting) proves my point.

It doesn't prove it whatsoever, it just shows what preference *I*
happen to have. However, it *does* speak volumes that you're trying to
claim support for your point in such a clearly false and untrue
manner.


andyt

 

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.


> 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?

I might suggest that "lazy" is snipping most of someone's post to
avoid all their points as you did with my other post.


>Your reply BELOW mine (correct-bottom posting) proves my point.

It doesn't prove it whatsoever, it just shows what preference *I*
happen to have. However, it *does* speak volumes that you're trying to
claim support for your point in such a clearly false and untrue
manner.


andyt

 

Sorry boys, I didn't mean to restart Star Wars here. But then again, while I
accept that etiquette may be an issue on a few particular occasions - not
least on those when you're invited by a member of the royalty, 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"?

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

JP Roberts

 

Sorry boys, I didn't mean to restart Star Wars here. But then again, while I
accept that etiquette may be an issue on a few particular occasions - not
least on those when you're invited by a member of the royalty, 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"?

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

JP Roberts

 

Sorry boys, I didn't mean to restart Star Wars here. But then again, while I
accept that etiquette may be an issue on a few particular occasions - not
least on those when you're invited by a member of the royalty, 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"?

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

JP Roberts

 

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?

Not everyone everywhere runs a threaded newsreader, you know.

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

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

> 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.

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

E.P.