Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to threads,
top or bottom??

mine12u 567opinupdaperligates wrote:
Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to threads,
top or bottom??

Usenet has traditionally used bottom-posting. This is very effective and
works well, but it requires trimming the stuff you're replying to.

When AOL came around, AOL used top-posting on their internal messaging
bases, and when they got connected up to Usenet, there appeared a huge
spate of top-posting on Usenet. For a long time it was considered
extremely rude but these days enough people are doing it that it's
becoming accepted in some newsgroups. It'll still brand you as a newbie,
though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
is below my cursor position. So, I just type. but I see where following a
conversation down, like adding to a piece of paper would seem more
realistic. Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????

LOL, ok I'm on TOP!

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
mine12u 567opinupdaperligates wrote:
Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to
threads,
top or bottom??

Usenet has traditionally used bottom-posting. This is very effective and
works well, but it requires trimming the stuff you're replying to.

When AOL came around, AOL used top-posting on their internal messaging
bases, and when they got connected up to Usenet, there appeared a huge
spate of top-posting on Usenet. For a long time it was considered
extremely rude but these days enough people are doing it that it's
becoming accepted in some newsgroups. It'll still brand you as a newbie,
though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Attribution:

"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message
...

Quote:

It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to
post
is below my cursor position. So, I just type. but I see where following a
conversation down, like adding to a piece of paper would seem more
realistic. Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????


Response:

No, what you have to do is actually read through the post and reply to
the sections of interest, attributing the quotes to the appropriate people.
It requires just a bit more effort than simply clicking reply and then
typing your response, but then it takes a bit of effort to use punctuation
and proper grammar too, without which conversations are a lot harder to
follow. If you do it the "right" way, then anyone can drop into a thread and
understand the conversation without going back and reading all the posts
that led up to it.

ryanm

"Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste, and polite.

There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post at the top, on the assumption
that the reader has already read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to
have to scroll down.

mine12u wrote:

It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
is below my cursor position.

While that's the easiest for the person doing the responding
it is hardly the easiest thing for one reading it to have to
slide down after it to understand what on earth the thing is
talking about and then go back up to read it while holding
the (often detailed) context in memory.

It is more considerate to someone reading your responses to
trim that to which you are responding down enough to
establish context and intersperse the responses following
the relevant points it contains (separated from it by blank
lines.) That takes a bit of effort though and many here
eschew any effort on their part in favor of shifting it to
the reader. It's particularly obnoxious when the responder
is especially verbose. There are a couple of folks here I
routinely skip over knowing in advance that their "style"
will prove more frustrating than their comment is likely to
be worth.

There aren't really any rules any more it's just about
whether one wants to be courteous or he doesn't really give
a rat's ass. I tend to give my attention to the courteous
and ignore the rest but that's just me.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

You have my vote. Who in their right mind begins reading threads in the
middle, or at the bottom?

--

www.acidplanet.com/starclimber
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste, and polite.

There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post at the top, on the
assumption
that the reader has already read the preceding messages, and doesn't want
to
have to scroll down.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
"Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste,
and polite. There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post
at the top, on the assumption that the reader has already
read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to have
to scroll down.

"Bill Kipper" wrote ...
You have my vote. Who in their right mind begins reading
threads in the middle, or at the bottom?

PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
for this newsgroup!!!

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
"Bottom" is supposed to be preferred, and in good taste,
and polite. There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post
at the top, on the assumption that the reader has already
read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to have
to scroll down.

"Bill Kipper" wrote ...
You have my vote. Who in their right mind begins reading
threads in the middle, or at the bottom?

PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
for this newsgroup!!!




Too late

I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this will
be short a post and easily read. And, the only considerations I see in this
conversation, is getting the point across, (which I have done or am doing) I
am replying to you, and no one else (in this post) so, top seems fine, at
the moment. The other, being for future replies to this post, which at this
point, if a bottom poster replies, will be somewhat confusing, at least for
the "next person reading and replying it".

But from reading most all threads in this group, I see how bottom posting is
better suited.


"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


mine12u wrote:

It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to
post
is below my cursor position.

While that's the easiest for the person doing the responding
it is hardly the easiest thing for one reading it to have to
slide down after it to understand what on earth the thing is
talking about and then go back up to read it while holding
the (often detailed) context in memory.

It is more considerate to someone reading your responses to
trim that to which you are responding down enough to
establish context and intersperse the responses following
the relevant points it contains (separated from it by blank
lines.) That takes a bit of effort though and many here
eschew any effort on their part in favor of shifting it to
the reader. It's particularly obnoxious when the responder
is especially verbose. There are a couple of folks here I
routinely skip over knowing in advance that their "style"
will prove more frustrating than their comment is likely to
be worth.

There aren't really any rules any more it's just about
whether one wants to be courteous or he doesn't really give
a rat's ass. I tend to give my attention to the courteous
and ignore the rest but that's just me.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur ("mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur) wrote:
It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
is below my cursor position. So, I just type. but I see where following a
conversation down, like adding to a piece of paper would seem more
realistic. Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????

Ctrl-[End], and always judiciously trim the quotes.

And please don't say you're too lazy to learn that gesture. And learn
at least a few other basic Windows commands, and you'll be all the
better in the environment. Such as:

Ctrl-[Home] (Goto beginning)
Ctrl-Left/Right (Move to next word)
Shift-[and a directional key/combo, including all the above] (Select)
Ctrl-x/c/v (Cut/Copy/Paste)
Alt-[Tab][Tab][Tab]... (app switch)

And realize that the way of the rodent might be intuitive and familiar,
but it ain't necessarily the best way to get things done, by a long
shot.

- Brian

Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????

Ctrl-[End], and always judiciously trim the quotes.

And please don't say you're too lazy to learn that gesture. And learn
at least a few other basic Windows commands, and you'll be all the
better in the environment. Such as:

Ctrl-[Home] (Goto beginning)
Ctrl-Left/Right (Move to next word)
Shift-[and a directional key/combo, including all the above] (Select)
Ctrl-x/c/v (Cut/Copy/Paste)
Alt-[Tab][Tab][Tab]... (app switch)

They keys are right in front of me, I use similar short cuts in other
programs....eh....
I just never thought to use it in Outlook express. THANKS!!

In article , Hal Laurent wrote:

I personally prefer top posting in a busy newsgroup such as
this one, as it makes it easier for me to decide whether I
want to scroll down to read the rest of the post before
moving on.

I don't understand this argument. If the replier has quoted
properly, you shouldn't have to scroll down to read. If you have
to, the fix is not to top-post, it's to teach the replier how to
quote.

--
André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we
despise, we don't believe in it at all. -- Noam Chomsky

WE didn't start it. YOU didn't read all of the thread!

PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
for this newsgroup!!!

Andre Majorel wrote:
In article , Hal Laurent wrote:

I personally prefer top posting in a busy newsgroup such as
this one, as it makes it easier for me to decide whether I
want to scroll down to read the rest of the post before
moving on.

I don't understand this argument. If the replier has quoted
properly, you shouldn't have to scroll down to read. If you have
to, the fix is not to top-post, it's to teach the replier how to
quote.

BINGO! This is precisely the point.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


PLEASE don't start another pointless Usenet Etiquette thread!
These are NEVER productive, and massively OFF TOPIC
for this newsgroup!!!

WE didn't start it. YOU didn't read all of the thread!

Hey, it only took me 20 seconds to turn top-posting with trashed headers
into a proper post.

Ironically, Outlook Express comes free with every modern windows system, and
it just works (although a bit messy with deep-level quoting which is why
OE-Quotefix is there).

In article writes:

There is no hard-and-fast rule. I prefer to post at the top, on the assumption
that the reader has already read the preceding messages, and doesn't want to
have to scroll down.

I may have read the preceding message, but yesterday, or several hours
ago, and have no idea what the reply is about unless I re-read the
message. I always let the one reading my message have a clue about
the point to which I'm replying.

Now when it comes to people who are too lazy or clueless to delete
irrelevant portions of the message to which they're writing their
reply, then sure, I'd rather it be at the bottom so I don't have to
read the whole thing.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article "mine12u" writes:

It seems like top posting would be easier, when I click to respond, to post
is below my cursor position. So, I just type.

That's fine if you're just spewing, but my memory is so short that
unless a message that I'm replying to is also very short, I may not
reply to all the points before I think I'm finished and push the
"save" button.

Don't tell me that I can configure Outlook Exp (cursor) to
default to bottom of post! .....;o .....can I????

It really doesn't make any difference how you set the default as long
as it's set to put the original message in your reply. You just move
the cursor to the point in the message where you want to start
talking, hit Enter to start a new line, and start typing. Then,
after you've made your point, move the cursor down into the original
message until you get to the next point where you want to comment and
repeat the procedure. If you've said all you need to say, then delete
the portion of the original message that's hanging below your reply.

What's so hard about that?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article "mine12u" writes:

I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

Sorry, but you ain't so ****ing important that I have to read what you
have to say before I have some idea of what you're talking about.

Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this will
be short a post and easily read.

Fine, but if you only have a little bit to say, then don't (as many
people do) leave the whole original message in yours, following your
reply. In fact, if you really have very little to say, consider not
saying it at all. Chances are someone else already has said the same
thing, and perhaps in more detail and clarity.

Newegroup _replies_ are for discussion, not proclamations.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Top posting doesn't work for people who are using software for the vision
impaired.

So, it is a courtesy to bottom post.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1062243865k@trad...

In article "mine12u" writes:

I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

Sorry, but you ain't so ****ing important that I have to read what you
have to say before I have some idea of what you're talking about.

Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this
will
be short a post and easily read.

Fine, but if you only have a little bit to say, then don't (as many
people do) leave the whole original message in yours, following your
reply. In fact, if you really have very little to say, consider not
saying it at all. Chances are someone else already has said the same
thing, and perhaps in more detail and clarity.

Newegroup _replies_ are for discussion, not proclamations.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

End of message.

To the bottom-posting rule-makers:

1-- I don't enjoy reading/skipping the same original post 5 times.

2-- Many replies have no interest to me, whatever the orginal post.

3-- It doesn't really have to be one way or the other. Context matters.

--

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1062243865k@trad...

In article "mine12u" writes:

I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

Sorry, but you ain't so ****ing important that I have to read what you
have to say before I have some idea of what you're talking about.

Not to contradict your recomendation (and the others) but figured this
will
be short a post and easily read.

Fine, but if you only have a little bit to say, then don't (as many
people do) leave the whole original message in yours, following your
reply. In fact, if you really have very little to say, consider not
saying it at all. Chances are someone else already has said the same
thing, and perhaps in more detail and clarity.

Newegroup _replies_ are for discussion, not proclamations.

That sounds an awful lot like a proclamation.

Jeff Maher
Garage Mahal Recording
Austin, TX

On 2003-08-30 said:
It really doesn't make any difference how you set the default as
long as it's set to put the original message in your reply. You
just move the cursor to the point in the message where you want to
start talking, hit Enter to start a new line, and start typing.
Then, after you've made your point, move the cursor down into the
original message until you get to the next point where you want to
comment and repeat the procedure. If you've said all you need to
say, then delete the portion of the original message that's hanging
below your reply. What's so hard about that?
NOthing, and it makes for easier reading if you get in on a thread
late. It also allows this old dos user with a speech box to skip all
the header junk as soon as I see that I've read the fellow being
quoted.

What gets me is downloading all these multiple brag lines and sig
files because somebody just hangs a one line comment under the header
and leaves all the original message below with everybody else's sig
lines and brag lines because we're too lazy to trim the unnecessary
junk.

Hrrrumph, too difficult to do with the mouse I guess.

REgards,





Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
No email, use this group and a subject of
"ping RIchard WEbb" I'll email you.


--



Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel, when it's not, isn't it?

"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message
news
Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.

But yet you posted to a public forum, so you were speaking to everyone
here. Kind of like turning off the music and screaming at the top of your
lungs at a party, and then asking everyone why they're looking at you.

ryanm

In article "mine12u" writes:

I am replying to you on top, because I want you to see this immediately.

Whats this about? g

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

In article , "mine12u"
123whatrweefitenfur writes:

Excuse me but, I wasn't speaking to you.

Wrong. You are speaking to everyone in this group.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

In article , mine12u wrote:

Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to threads,
top or bottom??

Since English is read left-to-right, top-to-bottom, bottom-posting is
the more logical and preferred approach, second only of course to
proper trimming/quoting.

Brian

Andre Majorel writes:

In article , Hal Laurent wrote:

I personally prefer top posting in a busy newsgroup such as
this one, as it makes it easier for me to decide whether I
want to scroll down to read the rest of the post before
moving on.

I don't understand this argument. If the replier has quoted
properly, you shouldn't have to scroll down to read. If you have
to, the fix is not to top-post, it's to teach the replier how to
quote.

That is true, but I am reading these posts on a 300 baud connection
at the moment, and there are several people who quote entire long
posts then add a short reply at the bottom. THis is most irritating,
and one of the reasons that I *generally* prefer top posts.
The exception for me is when the reply is done "converstaion"
style, where a few lines are quoted at a time, then the response
is added. But such replies get confusing when they too are
quoted for further responses.

Brian, what make you think we are all using windows, or have a mouse
for that matter? I'm reading this on a Unix system from a DOS PC
without a mouse. SOmetimes I read from VM/CMS systems w/o a mouse.
For the record, I've NEVER read this group from a Windows system.

Brian Takei writes:

Ctrl-[End], and always judiciously trim the quotes.

And please don't say you're too lazy to learn that gesture. And learn
at least a few other basic Windows commands, and you'll be all the
better in the environment. Such as:

Ctrl-[Home] (Goto beginning)
Ctrl-Left/Right (Move to next word)
Shift-[and a directional key/combo, including all the above] (Select)
Ctrl-x/c/v (Cut/Copy/Paste)
Alt-[Tab][Tab][Tab]... (app switch)

And realize that the way of the rodent might be intuitive and familiar,
but it ain't necessarily the best way to get things done, by a long
shot.

- Brian

(Richard Kuschel) writes:

Top posting doesn't work for people who are using software for the vision
impaired.

So, it is a courtesy to bottom post.

Ah, finally a good reason for bottom posting!!!!

mine12u 123whatrweefitenfur wrote:

Excuse me

No, thanks.

plonk

--
ha

georgeh ) wrote:
Brian, what make you think we are all using windows, or have a mouse
for that matter?

What made you mistakingly think I think that? My post was a direct
response to someone using Outlook Express (version 6.00.2800.1158).

- Brian

The only reason to top post in *this* group is to be obnoxious. In other
groups where the conversation is light and no one is likely to be trying to
glean useful information from the posts, it probably doesn't matter.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

All that said, I do it occasionally - but not where it might matter. As it
is, this message makes little sense because I top-posted.

"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message
...
Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to
threads,
top or bottom??



jb

wrote:

Hhmmm, another aol'er has spoken.

It was done this way long before aol, whether it be fidonet or other
online networks or usenet.

THe way things were done before the mouse potato revolution and a
computer for every idiot was bottom posting.


You're smirking at the wrong guy, my angry friend.

- I'm not an AOLer (read the headers)
- I made a living with computers since probably before you were born (1966)
- I was on message boards before there was an internet (Compuserve)

and your reasoning is shallow too.

wrote in message
...
wrote:

- I was on message boards before there was an internet (Compuserve)

Not to be particular, but you mean before there was a world wide web.
The internet has been here since the 70's and was actually around back in
the 60's in the form of ARPANET.

ryanm

You're looking at the reason.
Can you give an example?
Because the reply looks backwards.
Why is it irritating to top-post?




Kurt Riemann

Thanks for the replies.

In Outlook Express, I am set up similar (to bottom posting) It is set to
sort Asending and by date sent so, viewing the latest post in any newsgroup
is at the bottom, older at the top. I know others are set up the opposite,
which to me is would be backwards.

BTW: Got my RAP cd's !!!!


"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message
...
Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to
threads,
top or bottom??

) wrote:
You're smirking at the wrong guy, my angry friend.

- I'm not an AOLer (read the headers)
- I made a living with computers since probably before you were born (1966)
- I was on message boards before there was an internet (Compuserve)

and your reasoning is shallow too.

The relevant part of the header states that your original post was FROM
, and now you make a post FROM (an 'identity' with
no archived usenet history) to make this seemingly snide response. What
is the deep reasoning behind this behavior?

) previously wrote:
2-- Many replies have no interest to me, whatever the orginal post.

The headers from each of your prior two posts indicate that you are
using Agent. Maybe you haven't been using it for long, but you should
find a typical feature that addresses this very typical condition.

- Brian

I almost always top post and I don't understand why people are so
sensitive about it.

reddred wrote:
The only reason to top post in *this* group is to be obnoxious. In other
groups where the conversation is light and no one is likely to be trying to
glean useful information from the posts, it probably doesn't matter.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

All that said, I do it occasionally - but not where it might matter. As it
is, this message makes little sense because I top-posted.

"mine12u" 123whatrweefitenfur wrote in message
...

Which do you guys prefer (or is the prefered way) when replying to

threads,

top or bottom??




jb