In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:

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

I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
read a great deal into the statement I made!

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:

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

I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
read a great deal into the statement I made!

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:

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

I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
read a great deal into the statement I made!

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Warman wrote:
>>> I've been a top poster since about 1990. I for one, do not like to
>>> page down through umpteem paragraphs of unnecessary quote to fine a
>>> little gem like "me too" tacked on to the bottom.
>> That's a different netiquette issue - lack of post-trimming.
>>
>> Trim everything that doesn't apply, post as someone would logically
>> read.
>>
>> Just because the software puts the cursor at the top doesn't mean you
>> are required to respond there.
>>
>
> Bet you cant even state the reason for a bottom-post... other than it's
> the established custom..

That's the only reason required. Don't you agree that posts are easier
to follow and read when everyone follows the same convention? It's
confusing when some people top-post and some bottom-post - can you
really deny that?

--
Mike Smith

 

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Warman wrote:
>>> I've been a top poster since about 1990. I for one, do not like to
>>> page down through umpteem paragraphs of unnecessary quote to fine a
>>> little gem like "me too" tacked on to the bottom.
>> That's a different netiquette issue - lack of post-trimming.
>>
>> Trim everything that doesn't apply, post as someone would logically
>> read.
>>
>> Just because the software puts the cursor at the top doesn't mean you
>> are required to respond there.
>>
>
> Bet you cant even state the reason for a bottom-post... other than it's
> the established custom..

That's the only reason required. Don't you agree that posts are easier
to follow and read when everyone follows the same convention? It's
confusing when some people top-post and some bottom-post - can you
really deny that?

--
Mike Smith

 

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Warman wrote:
>>> I've been a top poster since about 1990. I for one, do not like to
>>> page down through umpteem paragraphs of unnecessary quote to fine a
>>> little gem like "me too" tacked on to the bottom.
>> That's a different netiquette issue - lack of post-trimming.
>>
>> Trim everything that doesn't apply, post as someone would logically
>> read.
>>
>> Just because the software puts the cursor at the top doesn't mean you
>> are required to respond there.
>>
>
> Bet you cant even state the reason for a bottom-post... other than it's
> the established custom..

That's the only reason required. Don't you agree that posts are easier
to follow and read when everyone follows the same convention? It's
confusing when some people top-post and some bottom-post - can you
really deny that?

--
Mike Smith

 

In article <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>,
secretspam@ihatespam.net says...
> 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.
>
>

Not only do you not know how to post to usenet correctly, it now appears
that you can't read it correctly either.

--
Alan LeHun

 

In article <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>,
secretspam@ihatespam.net says...
> 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.
>
>

Not only do you not know how to post to usenet correctly, it now appears
that you can't read it correctly either.

--
Alan LeHun

 

In article <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>,
secretspam@ihatespam.net says...
> 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.
>
>

Not only do you not know how to post to usenet correctly, it now appears
that you can't read it correctly either.

--
Alan LeHun

 

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:21:35 -0500, Fred W
<Malt_Hound@*spam-me-not*yahoo.com> wrote:

>Anthony Wilson wrote:
>> I'll put this on top and at the bottom so you're all happy and not happy.
>> Unless you drive BMW's, and I do, please take this infantile argument
>> elsewhere.
>>
>
>Anthony,
>
>You do know you just cross-posted that reply to 5 different newsgroups,
>only one of which has anything to do with BMWs, right?

Funny, you mention to him that he cross posted to 5 newsgroups but
you failed to mention you did the same thing. Either way, this
entire argument is pretty silly but it does make a few good points.
The top posters do tend to drop a single line on top of many many
lines of quoted text and often it's a stupid comment that has nothing
to do with the topic. I prefer to trim the quoted text to the portions
I wish to reply to and post my response directly after the quoted
portion. I would refer to this as mixed posting but I'm sure there's
someone out there that would banish it from the planet if they could.