Watercooling enwsgroup ?

David Maynard wrote:
Ben Pope wrote:

Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and
in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top
poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos."

But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost.

The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's
about standards. If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his
argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate
on which side of the road I drive."

RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which
it's done.

Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's
clear what's being said. However, quite often you see a one-liner crammed
up against the header information from the previous post, with maybe 5 to 6
other posts inconsistently quoted, 95% of which is completely irrelevent.
And thats considered "efficient" by the deficient author.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...

Ben Pope wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and
in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top
poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos."


But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost.

You and I have no disagreement.

Your point about the argument being lost is precisely why I was trying to induce
the previous poster to read the various articles on the subject. They don't just
simply say 'do it this way'; they provide the reasoning, based on the most
sensible, for why it's the 'accepted' methodology by those who think about it.


The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's
about standards. If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his
argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate
on which side of the road I drive."

An argument could be made that which side of the road one drives on poses a
physical danger to others whereas posting style "doesn't hurt anyone." That, of
course, is why one is law while the other is a matter of convention and courtesy.

RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which
it's done.

Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's
clear what's being said.

I agree. That, after all, is the purpose of writing a message, I should think

snip

Ben

Bite Me wrote:
In article , David Maynard wrote:

BillW wrote:

The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
the most efficient way........

And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.


Question: If proper 'net etiquette' is important, why didn't you trim the
rest of the stuff?

Because I felt it was relevant for background on what was being discussed;
which, if you had paid attention, was top vs bottom posting and not snipping
techniques.


Stuff that SHOULD have been deleted follows:

In your opinion.




"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


Phil Weldon wrote:


Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting

still


seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.

Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com



Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the

rapid


influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was

noted


in one of the articles.

But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top

or


bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not

the case.





Nope. Had to scroll to the bottom and no further (or pertinent) info.

It's 'pertinence', besides topical, is it shows how top posting gets things
stuck down here at the end of a message and your 'having' to read 'all the way
down' demonstrates that the top poster's argument of how top posting prevents
this very thing is incorrect.

I sure hope it didn't hurt your scroll finger, or strain your brain cells, to
read the 'whole thing'.