SgtSilicon wrote:
> 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.

That's exactly the way I think of top-posters.

E.P.

 

SgtSilicon wrote:
> You are wrong. Bottom posting is inferior to top posting.

Because *you* say so, of course.

LOL.

> Those who
> can manage news reading by thread and have an IQ above moron
> understand that.

And heck, if anyone misses any of the action, they can go to one of
your posts to get the whole thing, untrimmed.

Yeah, top-posting makes a *ton* of sense.

If you're an idiot, lazy, or care about nothing but yourself.

"Look, Ma! My words are at the top! They are the most important words
of all!"

E.P.

[full-quote deleted, AGAIN]

 

SgtSilicon wrote:
> You are wrong. Bottom posting is inferior to top posting.

Because *you* say so, of course.

LOL.

> Those who
> can manage news reading by thread and have an IQ above moron
> understand that.

And heck, if anyone misses any of the action, they can go to one of
your posts to get the whole thing, untrimmed.

Yeah, top-posting makes a *ton* of sense.

If you're an idiot, lazy, or care about nothing but yourself.

"Look, Ma! My words are at the top! They are the most important words
of all!"

E.P.

[full-quote deleted, AGAIN]

 

SgtSilicon wrote:
> You are wrong. Bottom posting is inferior to top posting.

Because *you* say so, of course.

LOL.

> Those who
> can manage news reading by thread and have an IQ above moron
> understand that.

And heck, if anyone misses any of the action, they can go to one of
your posts to get the whole thing, untrimmed.

Yeah, top-posting makes a *ton* of sense.

If you're an idiot, lazy, or care about nothing but yourself.

"Look, Ma! My words are at the top! They are the most important words
of all!"

E.P.

[full-quote deleted, AGAIN]

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said here. I would like to
point out though, that while it seems bottom posting did start
cropping up at some point in usenet as you say, it is not correct to
imply bottom posting was at the beginning of on-line history. Just
like usenet predated the W3, BBSs and message bases predated that. I
used those early on. I remember top posting was the norm. As well as
it always has in email as well (which also predates usenet).

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:01:20 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>Screw NETIQUETTE!
>
>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... and the time to load and read next
>post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.
>
>There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
>be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
>bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
>contents and then post a single line!!!!
>
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
>
>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'
>
>so just STFU!

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said here. I would like to
point out though, that while it seems bottom posting did start
cropping up at some point in usenet as you say, it is not correct to
imply bottom posting was at the beginning of on-line history. Just
like usenet predated the W3, BBSs and message bases predated that. I
used those early on. I remember top posting was the norm. As well as
it always has in email as well (which also predates usenet).

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:01:20 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>Screw NETIQUETTE!
>
>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... and the time to load and read next
>post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.
>
>There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
>be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
>bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
>contents and then post a single line!!!!
>
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
>
>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'
>
>so just STFU!

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said here. I would like to
point out though, that while it seems bottom posting did start
cropping up at some point in usenet as you say, it is not correct to
imply bottom posting was at the beginning of on-line history. Just
like usenet predated the W3, BBSs and message bases predated that. I
used those early on. I remember top posting was the norm. As well as
it always has in email as well (which also predates usenet).

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:01:20 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>Screw NETIQUETTE!
>
>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... and the time to load and read next
>post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.
>
>There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
>be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
>bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
>contents and then post a single line!!!!
>
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
>
>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'
>
>so just STFU!

 

You sure are hung up on this "tough" guy thing. Seems like you are
projecting. Tell you what, why don't you post your complete name and
address for everyone to see that you do not hide behind anything.

Anyway, the rest of us aren't hiding so because we fear you beating us
and showing everyone that we aren't the tough guys we all think we
are. Perhaps we stay anonymous so psycho ****** with something to
prove don't come around and make us shoot them. Or maybe we don't
want our bosses to see how much usenet we're doing, or maybe any
number of other perfectly sensible reasons which don't involve being
afraid of the likes of you. You really need to get over yourself.


On 27 Mar 2006 10:10:28 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>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.

 

You sure are hung up on this "tough" guy thing. Seems like you are
projecting. Tell you what, why don't you post your complete name and
address for everyone to see that you do not hide behind anything.

Anyway, the rest of us aren't hiding so because we fear you beating us
and showing everyone that we aren't the tough guys we all think we
are. Perhaps we stay anonymous so psycho ****** with something to
prove don't come around and make us shoot them. Or maybe we don't
want our bosses to see how much usenet we're doing, or maybe any
number of other perfectly sensible reasons which don't involve being
afraid of the likes of you. You really need to get over yourself.


On 27 Mar 2006 10:10:28 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>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.

 

You sure are hung up on this "tough" guy thing. Seems like you are
projecting. Tell you what, why don't you post your complete name and
address for everyone to see that you do not hide behind anything.

Anyway, the rest of us aren't hiding so because we fear you beating us
and showing everyone that we aren't the tough guys we all think we
are. Perhaps we stay anonymous so psycho ****** with something to
prove don't come around and make us shoot them. Or maybe we don't
want our bosses to see how much usenet we're doing, or maybe any
number of other perfectly sensible reasons which don't involve being
afraid of the likes of you. You really need to get over yourself.


On 27 Mar 2006 10:10:28 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>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.