Watercooling enwsgroup ?

Koop wrote:
I am with you guys, posting at the bottom makes no sense to me. Why
force me to scroll through all the previous posts, the posts I just
read, to get to the new reply? Get me to the new stuff quickly, so I
like top posters. I believe netiquette dictates that either top or
bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent throughout a
thread: if people have been bottom posting you should continue the
convention, if people have been top posting do likewise.

Interesting debate...

Koop

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Additional references --

http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Anton Smit: "Why is
Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://members.home.net/krobb7/quoting.html -- Ken Robbins - Quoting on Usenet
http://www.alt-html.org/index.html#usenet -- Brucie's alt.html General Information
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html -- zen and the art of
the internet (usenet section)
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html -- Jukka Korpela presents Tobias
Brox's Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.estreetjournal.com/cgi-lo...net/Etiquette/
-- Netiquette links
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ -- "rules" for posting to
usenet
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html -- Richard Kettlewell:
Quoting Style
http://www.html-faq.com/faq.php?clue=topposting -- alt.html FAQ reference on
posting methods
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/ -- "How not to look like an idiot",
What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html -- Netmeister: "How do I quote
correctly in Usenet"
http://www.topfloor.com/pr/communities/ch3.htm -- TopFloor Publishing: Online
communities - Participating effectively
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccau...ks/uquote.html -- G.McCaughan:
The advantages of Usenet's quoting conventions
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html -- FAQ of Proper Quoting
http://www.windfalls.net/ukrm/postinghelp.html -- "Suggestions on how to post"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html -- news.newusers.questions FAQ




"Herb Winston" wrote in message thlink.net...

Phil,

I couldn't agree more. I've been top posting for what seems forever, & if
someone doesn't like it they can just ignore it or kill-file me. The same
goes for replying cross-posted (in this instance replying to a cross posted
message).

Best regards,

--
Herb Winston AMA 50438
Bonita Springs, FL

"He may look like an idiot,
and he may sound like an idiot,
but don't let him fool you.
He really is an idiot."

Mark Twain
"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
...

First, my post was in no way a flame. Second, for a technical newsgroup

top

posting is much more efficient - you can go directly to the NEW

information

without scrolling through the prior posts. This is especially helpful
because in many cases the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the
reply will be relatively short.

A flame usually has clear characteristics, one of which is making false
unwarranted accusations.

Phil Weldon,

"Michal Rosa" wrote in message
.. .

Phil Weldon wrote:

First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea;

it is

[...[

Learn to bottom-post before you flame like that.

--
Michal Rosa
This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
Now playing: Eric Clapton - Train Kept A Rollin'

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

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.

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........


"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.

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........

OK this is now completely off topic in all crossposted newsgroups.

But I guess that doesn't matter either - it's probably "more efficient" to
discuss whatever, wherever.

:-)

Incidentally if you were to use a proper newsreader or OEQuoteFix, you'd be
able to see that you do not spend time searching for new data or reading old
data as it's all colour coded. But then you have to know how to post
correctly in order for it to work efficiently.

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

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.



"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.

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.

And you've probably not read two... :-)

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

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

"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Some of us wouldn't mind a third step:

Step 3) Apply a spell checker.

Regards,
--
*Art

Arthur Hagen wrote:
"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

I was going to reply to your post, but applied step two.

Seems you had nothing relevAnt to say.

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

Ben Pope wrote:
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.


And you've probably not read two... :-)

Bad bet on your part.

I was hoping to challenge the previous poster to actually read, perchance to
think, about the logic of it rather than simply knee jerk react with what he's
'always done'.


Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

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."


Ben