Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.






On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <MPG.1e9128a5ad02badb9898db@news.clara.net>
> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>
>> That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
>> lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
>
>However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.

 

Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.






On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <MPG.1e9128a5ad02badb9898db@news.clara.net>
> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>
>> That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
>> lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
>
>However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.

 

Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.






On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <MPG.1e9128a5ad02badb9898db@news.clara.net>
> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>
>> That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
>> lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.
>
>However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.

 

You are wrong. Bottom posting is inferior to top posting. Those who
can manage news reading by thread and have an IQ above moron
understand that.

On 27 Mar 2006 10:18:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>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?

 

You are wrong. Bottom posting is inferior to top posting. Those who
can manage news reading by thread and have an IQ above moron
understand that.

On 27 Mar 2006 10:18:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>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?

 

You are wrong. Bottom posting is inferior to top posting. Those who
can manage news reading by thread and have an IQ above moron
understand that.

On 27 Mar 2006 10:18:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>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?

 

BM, you may as well forget about it. Trying to convince these zealots
is like trying to explain the stock market to tribal goat traders.


On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:17:44 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A. Who are the biggest idiots on Usenet?
>
>>
>> A: Top-posters.
>>
>> Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
>>
>>
>
>Q. Opening statement concerning people who set their readers for best
>binaries viewing then complain about top posting in conversational groups.

 

BM, you may as well forget about it. Trying to convince these zealots
is like trying to explain the stock market to tribal goat traders.


On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:17:44 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A. Who are the biggest idiots on Usenet?
>
>>
>> A: Top-posters.
>>
>> Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
>>
>>
>
>Q. Opening statement concerning people who set their readers for best
>binaries viewing then complain about top posting in conversational groups.

 

BM, you may as well forget about it. Trying to convince these zealots
is like trying to explain the stock market to tribal goat traders.


On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:17:44 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A. Who are the biggest idiots on Usenet?
>
>>
>> A: Top-posters.
>>
>> Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
>>
>>
>
>Q. Opening statement concerning people who set their readers for best
>binaries viewing then complain about top posting in conversational groups.

 

On 27 Mar 2006 13:24:17 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>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.
>

Actually, you are wrong.

>> 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.

No idiot, it means it's a free country and I don't answer to you. I
realize that your God complex might get in the way of you
understanding that, and thus you look for other (incorrect)
explanations.

>
>> 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.

No, just to those with an IQ above moron. You get to call me lazy, I
get to call you stupid. See, you aren't God after all.

>> 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.

I see. And you're saying that you ARE a "tough guy"? I sure don't
know you, but I can tell you based on odds and averages, that you
would find probably find me pretty tough. But in any case, my days of
brawling are behind me and I choose not to invite people to hook up
for a street meet. Sorry if that disappoints you. Besides, it might
result in me having to shoot some dumb *** like you, and even you
shouldn't have that happen to you. And I sure don't need the
paperwork.

By the way, you can suck my right nut though.

>
>> They are wrong, and so are the people who
>> worship them.
>
>Oooo, now you have to make stuff up. Feel better?

Your devotion to this cause suggests an almost religious commitment.
I don't think the comment too far off the mark.

>> 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...

The conversation has most likely already been read in previous posts.
Forcing others to make an effort to move down to the new material is
the rude and inefficient way of doing things. In the event that it
has not (already been read), anyone with more than two brain cells to
rub together can then simply poke down a little to gain the context
they need. I suppose that this poses a mild challenge to dim wits
(which most usenet users are not) and lazy people. It is becoming
clear who the real lazy people are. Those who cry if not everybody
bottom posts for them. Cry babies like you.

>> 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.

I do that. The new material is right at the top and reads going down.
Old material is secondary and is provided as a potential reference
only.

>> 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.

you are ignorant. I've NEVER used AOL. I have been a member of
the online community since 1983. I have always used software which
inserts replied text as the start, and secondary, supporting quoted
text after. This holds true for BBS message boards, FIDOnet, email,
and now usenet. It seems it wasn't until cry babies like you started
pissing and moaning in usenet that there was even anyone who didn't
plainly understand the naturalness of top posting.


>> If you
>> can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
>
>Ooo, more tough-guy stuff.

No, it means if you get so worked up by the idea that people have
different styles and are so intolerant to them, you should move on.
Move on rather than throw juvenile tantrums.