OK to use inkjet paper in a laser printer?

In message jp4Kj.160531$pM4.60023@pd7urf1no, Arthur Entlich
writes

Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my
answering protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the
reasons I top post numerous times in various groups I post within, and
you'll find them, at the top, intermingled and at the bottom of such
previous requests or comments. Top postings saves me valuable time
which allows me to respond to many more queries.

I doubt it saves you much time, and it may waste the time of your
readers.


It also saves times for many readers of my replies.

I don't really see how.


Set posting positions are an old and outdated protocol,

You opine...


and if you find how I post more important that the information I
provide, then I suggest you simply filter my posts out, if they are
disturbing to you. I get VERY few complaints from people who care
about this,

I wouldn't normally mention it, but as it's come up...

As far as I recall, what you write is generally interesting and
sensible, so it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath
water.


and I actually get an equal number of people who have told me they
prefer top posting in this type of forum to that of intermingled or
bottom posting.

There will always be people who didn't grow up with these conventions
that will resent them, or that will resent being told about them.

Not all of them will be a waste of space, but it's a good indicator IME.


Bottom posting perhaps had it's purpose when computers were slow, text
was big and bulky, and systems and users required more convention.

This from the man who thinks top posting saves time ? I don't see your
logic here.


With today's much more sophisticated email clients and readers, the
issue is almost moot.

Not unless they can tell you if material has been added in places other
than the top of the message commented on without looking at the whole
message.


Also, anyone following a thread will find top posting considerably
faster to read.

Only if they know in advance that you, and some other subset of
contributors, have undertaken never to post below the top.


It is a bit like sexual positions; different strokes for different
folks, and although there are still many out there who think they
should dictate to the world just what strokes to use, I'm of the school
that they should stick to making those decisions for themselves, in the
bedroom, or kitchen, or hallway, or office desk, or elevator, or...

It seems to me that there is value in everybody using the same
convention because it makes threads easier to read if messages are
generally the same way up. It's one thing less to think about.

Especially where there are many layers of comments, it seems to make
things much more comprehensible if older text is more indented, with
comments local and sequential to the points commented on.

At the end of the day though, it's up to you to work out if the way you
are communicating your very excellent points is better or worse than the
accepted convention. It may be wise when you get feedback however, to
consider which is based on years of experience, which is based on a
bloody minded but pointless aversion to being told what to do, and which
is based on blissful or wilful ignorance and inexperience.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

At 16:07:08 on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 John Beardmore opined:-

In message jp4Kj.160531$pM4.60023@pd7urf1no, Arthur Entlich e-
writes

Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my
answering protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the
reasons I top post numerous times in various groups I post within, and
you'll find them, at the top, intermingled and at the bottom of such
previous requests or comments. Top postings saves me valuable time
which allows me to respond to many more queries.

I doubt it saves you much time, and it may waste the time of your
readers.

I would not normally leap to the defence of top-posting. But if AE says
it saves him valuable time I have no reason to disbelieve him.
--
Thoss

In message FuKKj.34484$rd2.13867@pd7urf3no, Arthur Entlich
writes

I explained to you why bottom posting became a standard,

I'm not sure that what you said did explain it.


and why it no longer has its place in these types of discussion
groups.

I don't think you had any cause and effect, just an assertion really.


Unfortunately, we are in the midst of this transition before everyone
decides to switch to top posting,

I'm not sure that we are !


and that creates a certain amount of chaos. But much more to the
point, the CONTENT of the information is a heck of a lot more important
that the format. Form over function is often a poor value choice.

Indeed, but better form still makes for better communication.


If you continually ignore established rules of etiquette whether
on or off line people are entitled to regard your behaviour as
inappropriate and/or insulting. This is without even considering
the very purpose of quoting previous posts: if it is not providing
context then there is no point in quoting at all.

I don't spit of the sidewalk or nor clear my nasal passages while in
public, and I'd hardly consider top posting inconsiderate, abusive,
inappropriate or insulting or disrespectful.

Nor it seems, do you seem keen to consider why some people do.


I don't even smoke.

Nobody said you did.


It doesn't hurt to learn a bit more tolerance and acceptance.

Nor does it hurt for you to invest a little more effort in seeing where
other people are coming from.


The context of the discussion is there for those who require it; it is
just underneath the new and more topical information.

It is, but in complex threads, this may not easily reflect the history
of the discussion.


Net police sound like people who were scandalized by the first women
who showed their ankles in public.

No - I think there's more to it than that.


I "put up" with bottom and integrated/intermingled posters without a
whimper. I just adjust to it, even though, in general, it is time
wasting for me. Rather than whining about what you think is a better
protocol, you can try a few things:

1) decide you won't read top posted message and delete them when you
see them

2) Filter out top posting individuals

3) answer so many questions, that your bottom posting becomes as common
as borscht, and posters like me become a tiny minority

4) Start a bottom posting only newsgroup which discusses why bottom
posting is so superior.

5) Recognize that people have a basic right to post as they wish, as
long as the content has value, and pay more attention to the content
and less to the format.

And

6)...

now, I am going back to the groups I usually hang with, who know the
value of my input such that most of them don't care when I put my
replies, so I won't continue to post in whichever sacred newsgroup you
are hanging in which finds top posting so deplorable.

The trouble is that 1, 2 and 6 don't optimise communications, and 3
pretty much sums up the status quo, at least in the groups I read.

4 only helps if you undertake to read and learn from it, so I'm not
holding my breath, and consider 5 recognised, along with the notion that
much of human behaviour is sub optimal.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:31:38 +0100, thoss
wrote:

At 16:07:08 on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 John Beardmore opined:-

In message jp4Kj.160531$pM4.60023@pd7urf1no, Arthur Entlich e-
writes

Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my
answering protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the
reasons I top post numerous times in various groups I post within, and
you'll find them, at the top, intermingled and at the bottom of such
previous requests or comments. Top postings saves me valuable time
which allows me to respond to many more queries.

I doubt it saves you much time, and it may waste the time of your
readers.

I would not normally leap to the defence of top-posting. But if AE says
it saves him valuable time I have no reason to disbelieve him.


We could reasonably argue that the amount of time he has
spend defending his position is a larger amount of time than
the sum of all the time, in his lifetime, that would be
taken pressing the Page Down key a time or two (just prior
to having to use all the other keyboard keys a few hundred
times to type out replies.

kony wrote:
wrote:

.... snip ...

I would not normally leap to the defence of top-posting. But if
AE says it saves him valuable time I have no reason to disbelieve
him.

We could reasonably argue that the amount of time he has spend
defending his position is a larger amount of time than the sum of
all the time, in his lifetime, that would be taken pressing the
Page Down key a time or two (just prior to having to use all the
other keyboard keys a few hundred times to type out replies.

However don't forget the necessary (but too often omitted) time to
mark and delete the majority (irrelevant portion) of the quote with
the delete key. This is popularly known as 'intelligent snipping'.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 2008-04-20, kony wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:31:38 +0100, thoss
wrote:
At 16:07:08 on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 John Beardmore opined:-

I doubt it saves you much time, and it may waste the time of your
readers.

I would not normally leap to the defence of top-posting. But if AE says
it saves him valuable time I have no reason to disbelieve him.

We could reasonably argue that the amount of time he has
spend defending his position is a larger amount of time than
the sum of all the time, in his lifetime, that would be
taken pressing the Page Down key a time or two (just prior
to having to use all the other keyboard keys a few hundred
times to type out replies.

I agree with this. It isn't merely a question of a few extra
keystrokes. It is part of the overall writing process to get your
post into a form suitable for distribution. The vast majority of
worthwhile posts take a measurable amount of time to prepare.

Sure, you have a few that you can answer off the top of your head
with a one line response, but in my experience the vast majority
either require checking something up or a detailed explanation of
issues raised, which in turn requires a little time in order to
present your thoughts in a coherent manner.

If we say that the average response takes even 5-10 minutes to
compose (and some posts take far longer) then the time taken to
scroll down to the bottom (if your newsreader does not do this for
you) and/or trim any unneeded quotation is insignificant in
comparision. Indeed, after expending the effort of writing your
post it seems natural to me to want to display the result of that
effort in the best possible manner.

In short, the "it saves me time" argument only ever holds water
for very quick and possibly ill-considered or poorly developed
responses. Those tend to be low quality posts to begin with.

--
Andrew Smallshaw