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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

In addition, it's accepted usenet etiquette. Top-posting isn't.

E.P.

 

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.

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

In addition, it's accepted usenet etiquette. Top-posting isn't.

E.P.

 

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.

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

In addition, it's accepted usenet etiquette. Top-posting isn't.

E.P.

 

Andy Turner wrote:
> 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.

Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
for me to re-type the stuff.

> 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.

If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
a point. Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
intersperse or bottom-post.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
view, either in official FAQs, guides to netiquette or normal logic.

I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude, and not
one word of your opinion on the matter will change that assessment.

Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.

Regards,

E.P.

 

Andy Turner wrote:
> 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.

Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
for me to re-type the stuff.

> 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.

If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
a point. Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
intersperse or bottom-post.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
view, either in official FAQs, guides to netiquette or normal logic.

I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude, and not
one word of your opinion on the matter will change that assessment.

Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.

Regards,

E.P.

 

Andy Turner wrote:
> 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.

Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
for me to re-type the stuff.

> 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.

If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
a point. Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
intersperse or bottom-post.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
view, either in official FAQs, guides to netiquette or normal logic.

I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude, and not
one word of your opinion on the matter will change that assessment.

Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.

Regards,

E.P.

 

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')

 

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')