Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology - STFU!!!
Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Quote some netiquette where it's deemed that top-posting is preferable,
> > and I'll admit you're right.
>
> Screw NETIQUETTE!
You didn't ask about netiquette, you asked for *reasons*.
And I gave the big one to you. Are you not adult enough to acknowledge
it?
Yeah, screw netiquette. Chew with your mouth open, belch in public,
slurp your soup. Who cares, as long as *you're* happy, right?
> Bottom posting originated in the early days of newsgroups, LONG before
> the Web was introduced, when people used character terminals and could
> only display one post at a time.
So what? You still don't read from bottom to top, do you? Just
because software and bandwidth have changed doesn't mean that
politeness and convention become somehow moot.
> There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
> be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated
Top-posting actually encourages this. People throw in a one-line "LOL"
over 200 lines of quoted crap. Bottom or interspersed posting at least
forces folks to look at how much crap they are quoting. 90% of
full-quoters are also top-posters, IME.
> if you want to
> bitch, bitch about those who dont trim
Yeah - like the top-posters in this thread. Count how many full-quoted
as opposed to those who trimmed.
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
So you *do* read from bottom to top? Nobody I know does that - it
doesn't seem all that common to me...
> In other words, you dont know what you are talking about... you are
> bitching about the wrong thing and you argument is as stupid as those who
> complain about 'wasting bandwidth on a text NG'
LOL. Classic usenet - get proven wrong, claim victory and try to shout
down and insult the other posters.
> so just STFU!
Big talk from some anonymous guy hiding behind a computer screen. You
some kind of usenet tough guy?
E.P.
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Jim Warman wrote:
> <SIGH>... used to be, once upon a time, that folks were smart enough to
> realize what they were replying to.... if, perchance, ones memory took a
> sidestep, a small snippet at the bottom would be available to refresh the
> memory....
Except that very few top-posters even bother trimming. Even your post
is non-sensical - no quote, no idea what you're responding about, who
you're responding to...
There are folks out there how don't use threaded newsreaders, or who do
not like to read the news threaded. Screw them, right? Only your way
is the right way?
> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. FWIW... I top > post and I will
> continue the practice. In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
> if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
> his loss... not mine.
If you can't figure out something as simple as how to post properly,
why should anyone value your input on something as complicated as the
modern automobile?
BTW, if you read the very first post, you'll see how the subject came
about. You find the answer in the last post in the thread, since you
read from bottom to top. Do you tell the punchline of your joke first?
> Now.... would you classify this post as top or bottom????
Neither. There was no quoted material. Also rude and lazy, but who
cares, right? As long as *you're* happy, that's all that matters.
E.P.
A: Top-posters.
Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Jim Warman wrote:
> <SIGH>... used to be, once upon a time, that folks were smart enough to
> realize what they were replying to.... if, perchance, ones memory took a
> sidestep, a small snippet at the bottom would be available to refresh the
> memory....
Except that very few top-posters even bother trimming. Even your post
is non-sensical - no quote, no idea what you're responding about, who
you're responding to...
There are folks out there how don't use threaded newsreaders, or who do
not like to read the news threaded. Screw them, right? Only your way
is the right way?
> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. FWIW... I top > post and I will
> continue the practice. In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
> if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
> his loss... not mine.
If you can't figure out something as simple as how to post properly,
why should anyone value your input on something as complicated as the
modern automobile?
BTW, if you read the very first post, you'll see how the subject came
about. You find the answer in the last post in the thread, since you
read from bottom to top. Do you tell the punchline of your joke first?
> Now.... would you classify this post as top or bottom????
Neither. There was no quoted material. Also rude and lazy, but who
cares, right? As long as *you're* happy, that's all that matters.
E.P.
A: Top-posters.
Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Jim Warman wrote:
> <SIGH>... used to be, once upon a time, that folks were smart enough to
> realize what they were replying to.... if, perchance, ones memory took a
> sidestep, a small snippet at the bottom would be available to refresh the
> memory....
Except that very few top-posters even bother trimming. Even your post
is non-sensical - no quote, no idea what you're responding about, who
you're responding to...
There are folks out there how don't use threaded newsreaders, or who do
not like to read the news threaded. Screw them, right? Only your way
is the right way?
> I am unsure of the "who or how" relatioship to the subject came about. FWIW... I top > post and I will
> continue the practice. In automotive venues, I have some valuable input...
> if someone prefers not to read anything from the top-posting yoyo, it is his
> his loss... not mine.
If you can't figure out something as simple as how to post properly,
why should anyone value your input on something as complicated as the
modern automobile?
BTW, if you read the very first post, you'll see how the subject came
about. You find the answer in the last post in the thread, since you
read from bottom to top. Do you tell the punchline of your joke first?
> Now.... would you classify this post as top or bottom????
Neither. There was no quoted material. Also rude and lazy, but who
cares, right? As long as *you're* happy, that's all that matters.
E.P.
A: Top-posters.
Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
SgtSilicon wrote:
> I'm not going to debate it.
There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
had that one figured.
> Top posting makes
> more sense.
For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
> Johnny come lately self appointed arbiters of internet
> rules can suck my left nut.
If you had *****, you wouldn't be such an anonymous tough guy.
> They are wrong, and so are the people who
> worship them.
Oooo, now you have to make stuff up. Feel better?
> The new material belongs right up front at the top.
Unless you read like normal people do, and then it belongs in the flow
of conversation. Heck, even PM software scrolls from the top down...
> It
> isn't laziness.
Of course it is. Otherwise, you'd lay out your posts in the same
fashion everyone reads - from top to bottom.
> The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
reason.
> If you
> can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
Ooo, more tough-guy stuff.
[full-quote deleted]
And, to top it all off, you full-quoted without any trimming. You're
totally clueless.
E.P.
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
SgtSilicon wrote:
> I'm not going to debate it.
There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
had that one figured.
> Top posting makes
> more sense.
For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
> Johnny come lately self appointed arbiters of internet
> rules can suck my left nut.
If you had *****, you wouldn't be such an anonymous tough guy.
> They are wrong, and so are the people who
> worship them.
Oooo, now you have to make stuff up. Feel better?
> The new material belongs right up front at the top.
Unless you read like normal people do, and then it belongs in the flow
of conversation. Heck, even PM software scrolls from the top down...
> It
> isn't laziness.
Of course it is. Otherwise, you'd lay out your posts in the same
fashion everyone reads - from top to bottom.
> The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
reason.
> If you
> can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
Ooo, more tough-guy stuff.
[full-quote deleted]
And, to top it all off, you full-quoted without any trimming. You're
totally clueless.
E.P.
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
SgtSilicon wrote:
> I'm not going to debate it.
There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
had that one figured.
> Top posting makes
> more sense.
For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
> Johnny come lately self appointed arbiters of internet
> rules can suck my left nut.
If you had *****, you wouldn't be such an anonymous tough guy.
> They are wrong, and so are the people who
> worship them.
Oooo, now you have to make stuff up. Feel better?
> The new material belongs right up front at the top.
Unless you read like normal people do, and then it belongs in the flow
of conversation. Heck, even PM software scrolls from the top down...
> It
> isn't laziness.
Of course it is. Otherwise, you'd lay out your posts in the same
fashion everyone reads - from top to bottom.
> The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
reason.
> If you
> can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
Ooo, more tough-guy stuff.
[full-quote deleted]
And, to top it all off, you full-quoted without any trimming. You're
totally clueless.
E.P.
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mortschnerd@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE> wrote:
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same
>> unsupportable reasons.
>
>
>
> I know I do. If one does some tight editing, you follow the flow in a
> normal pattern and both the reference and the answer are viewable in
> the same window without having to scroll. The editing only takes a
> moment. The quotation is only supposed to give the answer a frame of
> reference; not be an archive of the entire conversation.
Uh... except!!! I edit.. how many dont?!!
....That some expect to see the whole thread within the single post, then
often comment out of context of the thread subject.
Just read the freaking posts in thread order, I'd be fine if NG's were
still being developed and if a rule was made that you couldnt quote more
than 3 lines of a prev post.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same
>> unsupportable reasons.
>
>
>
> I know I do. If one does some tight editing, you follow the flow in a
> normal pattern and both the reference and the answer are viewable in
> the same window without having to scroll. The editing only takes a
> moment. The quotation is only supposed to give the answer a frame of
> reference; not be an archive of the entire conversation.
Uh... except!!! I edit.. how many dont?!!
....That some expect to see the whole thread within the single post, then
often comment out of context of the thread subject.
Just read the freaking posts in thread order, I'd be fine if NG's were
still being developed and if a rule was made that you couldnt quote more
than 3 lines of a prev post.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mortschnerd@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE> wrote:
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same
>> unsupportable reasons.
>
>
>
> I know I do. If one does some tight editing, you follow the flow in a
> normal pattern and both the reference and the answer are viewable in
> the same window without having to scroll. The editing only takes a
> moment. The quotation is only supposed to give the answer a frame of
> reference; not be an archive of the entire conversation.
Uh... except!!! I edit.. how many dont?!!
....That some expect to see the whole thread within the single post, then
often comment out of context of the thread subject.
Just read the freaking posts in thread order, I'd be fine if NG's were
still being developed and if a rule was made that you couldnt quote more
than 3 lines of a prev post.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same
>> unsupportable reasons.
>
>
>
> I know I do. If one does some tight editing, you follow the flow in a
> normal pattern and both the reference and the answer are viewable in
> the same window without having to scroll. The editing only takes a
> moment. The quotation is only supposed to give the answer a frame of
> reference; not be an archive of the entire conversation.
Uh... except!!! I edit.. how many dont?!!
....That some expect to see the whole thread within the single post, then
often comment out of context of the thread subject.
Just read the freaking posts in thread order, I'd be fine if NG's were
still being developed and if a rule was made that you couldnt quote more
than 3 lines of a prev post.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mortschnerd@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE> wrote:
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same
>> unsupportable reasons.
>
>
>
> I know I do. If one does some tight editing, you follow the flow in a
> normal pattern and both the reference and the answer are viewable in
> the same window without having to scroll. The editing only takes a
> moment. The quotation is only supposed to give the answer a frame of
> reference; not be an archive of the entire conversation.
Uh... except!!! I edit.. how many dont?!!
....That some expect to see the whole thread within the single post, then
often comment out of context of the thread subject.
Just read the freaking posts in thread order, I'd be fine if NG's were
still being developed and if a rule was made that you couldnt quote more
than 3 lines of a prev post.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same
>> unsupportable reasons.
>
>
>
> I know I do. If one does some tight editing, you follow the flow in a
> normal pattern and both the reference and the answer are viewable in
> the same window without having to scroll. The editing only takes a
> moment. The quotation is only supposed to give the answer a frame of
> reference; not be an archive of the entire conversation.
Uh... except!!! I edit.. how many dont?!!
....That some expect to see the whole thread within the single post, then
often comment out of context of the thread subject.
Just read the freaking posts in thread order, I'd be fine if NG's were
still being developed and if a rule was made that you couldnt quote more
than 3 lines of a prev post.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!