O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations

[Craig Lewis]

Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"

Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
================================================== ==========

"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."

"Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"

"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
================================================== ==========
>From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
yourself immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
================================================== ==========
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
got the little Fokker in sight."
================================================== ==========
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
was your last known position?"

Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
================================================== ==========
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
long roll out after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
================================================== ==========

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
"a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
approach."
================================================== ==========

Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
was the problem?"

"The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
pilot."
================================================== ==========

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
overheard the following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
in Germany. Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war."
================================================== ==========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."

================================================== ========

One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
make it all by yourself?"

The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
================================================== ==========

While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

[Dave S]

Thanks...

Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
us who dont know how to google..

Dave

Craig Lewis wrote:
> Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
> will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
> between airline pilots and control towers around the world.
>
> Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"
>
> Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
> ================================================== ==========
>
> "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."
>
> "Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"
>
> "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
> ================================================== ==========
>>From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
> "I'm bored!"
>
> Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
> yourself immediately!"
>
> Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
> ================================================== ==========
> O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
> is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."
>
> United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
> got the little Fokker in sight."
> ================================================== ==========
> A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
> attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
> was your last known position?"
>
> Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
> ================================================== ==========
> A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
> long roll out after touching down.
>
> San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
> turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
> you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
> make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
> landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
> "a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
> he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
>
> "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
> approach."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
> and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
> off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
> was the problem?"
>
> "The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
> explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
> pilot."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
> overheard the following:
>
> Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
> time?"
>
> Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
> English."
>
> Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
> in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
>
> Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
> "Because you lost the bloody war."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
> on frequency 124.7"
>
> Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
> way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
> far end of the runway."
>
> Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
> contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
> from Eastern 702?"
>
> Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
> and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."
>
> ================================================== ========
>
> One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
> hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
> landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
> Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
> the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
> make it all by yourself?"
>
> The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
> back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
> landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
> Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
> came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
> controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
> where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
> Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
> I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
> D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
> crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
> everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
> right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
> progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
> you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
> tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"
>
> "Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
> control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
> verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
> the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
> every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
> Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
> microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

[zatatime]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:52:21 -0500, Craig Lewis
> wrote:

>Here are some conversations...

Thanks for the laughs!

z

[Bob Ward]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:53:20 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>Thanks...
>
>Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
>us who dont know how to google..
>
>Dave

And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who can't be
bothered to trim their quotes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Thanks...
>
> Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
> us who dont know how to google..

That's the 18th time this year I've seen that retort...just for those who DO
know HOW to Google...but don't.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Gary G]

Thanks!
This is the first time I've seen them.
I enjoyed it.
Please feel free to post!

[SYBIL-IZED]

LMAO...Thanks these were really funny. Mind if I use some of these in my
next trek ?
Especially the one about irate controller. Some big airports hate small
crafts buzzing into their routine and have a habit of being dry with us
amateur pilots.
Thanks for sharing.

"Craig Lewis" > wrote in message
...
> Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
> will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
> between airline pilots and control towers around the world.
>
> Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"
>
> Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
> ================================================== ==========
>
> "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."
>
> "Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"
>
> "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
> ================================================== ==========
>>From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
> "I'm bored!"
>
> Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
> yourself immediately!"
>
> Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
> ================================================== ==========
> O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
> is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."
>
> United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
> got the little Fokker in sight."
> ================================================== ==========
> A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
> attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
> was your last known position?"
>
> Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
> ================================================== ==========
> A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
> long roll out after touching down.
>
> San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
> turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
> you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
> make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
> landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
> "a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
> he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
>
> "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
> approach."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
> and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
> off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
> was the problem?"
>
> "The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
> explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
> pilot."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
> overheard the following:
>
> Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
> time?"
>
> Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
> English."
>
> Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
> in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
>
> Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
> "Because you lost the bloody war."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
> on frequency 124.7"
>
> Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
> way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
> far end of the runway."
>
> Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
> contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
> from Eastern 702?"
>
> Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
> and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."
>
> ================================================== ========
>
> One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
> hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
> landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
> Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
> the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
> make it all by yourself?"
>
> The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
> back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
> landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
> Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
> came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
> controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
> where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
> Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
> I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
> D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
> crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
> everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
> right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
> progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
> you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
> tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"
>
> "Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
> control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
> verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
> the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
> every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
> Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
> microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

[n0apla2l]

Craig Lewis > wrote in message >...

> Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
> will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
> between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Old but still funny. Lest anybody be fooled, however, these are NOT
"actual exchanges between airline pilots and control towers around the
world". They are fictional.

[Dave S]

I quit counting when I use up one hands worth of fingers

Dave

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Thanks...
>>
>>Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
>>us who dont know how to google..
>
>
> That's the 18th time this year I've seen that retort...just for those who DO
> know HOW to Google...but don't.
>
>

[Dave S]

Nope.. actually I dont. Thanks for asking though.

Dave


Bob Ward wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:53:20 GMT, Dave S >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks...
>>
>>Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
>>us who dont know how to google..
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who can't be
> bothered to trim their quotes?
>
>

[ShawnD2112]

Bob,

That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
missing?

Cheers,
Shawn
"Bob Ward" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:53:20 GMT, Dave S >
> wrote:
>
>>Thanks...
>>
>>Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
>>us who dont know how to google..
>>
>>Dave
>
> And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who can't be
> bothered to trim their quotes?
>
>

[Joachim Feise]

ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:

> I've never
> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
> missing?

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.

-Joe

[SYBIL-IZED]

We will let the Mythbusters settle that matter shall we...LOL
"n0apla2l" > wrote in message
om...
> Craig Lewis > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
>> will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
>> between airline pilots and control towers around the world.
>
> Old but still funny. Lest anybody be fooled, however, these are NOT
> "actual exchanges between airline pilots and control towers around the
> world". They are fictional.

[Jose]

Top posting is not inherently enefarious, but like any tool, it can be used for good or for evil. In cases where the response requires context, it is
good to give a hint of the context before the reply by quoting a well selected part of the original post, and posting your reply below. Often the
post has already been read (though forgotten) by the reader, but often it has not yet reached the reader and the context is essential or your own
point gets lost.

However, if your post stands on its own even in the absence of context, then it is often better to top post. Those who want additional context can
see it below, but most people will not need this context and can just move on or reply after seeing your words. Most people will not need this
context =because= your post is self-contained; if your post is not self contained then obviously this doesn't apply in that case.

I suppose that problems arise because one =thinks= their post is self contained, (after all, the poster knows the context) but it in fact is not. I
won't venture a guess as to how many people think how many posts are how far past that line, except to say that it appears that enough do to sustain
this usenet perpetual motion machine.

Never confuse motion with action.
Never confuse action with results.

And never confuse results with what you wanted in the first place. :)

Jose
(note - I only follow rec.aviation.piloting, of the 3 groups I replied to)

> ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
>
>> I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I missing?
>
>
> A: No.
> Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>
> Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
>
> -Joe


--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Ward]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:47:01 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:

>Bob,
>
>That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
>understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>missing?
>
>Cheers,
>Shawn

The normal sequence of reading, processing, and understanding the
conversation.

The only place where the question is normally seen after the answer is
on Jeopardy - and you're no Alex Trebeck

[James Robinson]

ShawnD2112 wrote:
>
> I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
> What am I missing?

Two reasons:

One, as a thread progresses, a mix of top and bottom posting becomes
confusing when someone wants to look back through the quoted material.
Since most posters to newsgroups bottom post, that is the de facto
standard method. Email users typically top post, so that becomes the
standard for email.

Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
posts under control.

[m pautz]

Dave S wrote:
> Thanks...
>
> Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those... just for those of
> us who dont know how to google..
>
> Dave
>
>

I laugh every time. I don't care how many times it is posted.

The bad news about getting older: I forget that I have already told a
joke to my friends.
The good news about getting older: My friends have forgotten the punch
lines.


The good news about alzhimeres:

There are never any reruns.
Every joke is a new joke.
You get to go to bed with a new woman every night.

[pickle]

ShawnD2112 wrote:

> Bob,
>
> That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
> missing?
>

Not saying please or thank you is not evil either but it IS bad manners
and goes against established protocals that have been around for many,
many years.

[Greasy Rider]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:39:13 GMT, m pautz >
proclaimed:

>The good news about alzhimeres:
>
>There are never any reruns.
>Every joke is a new joke.
>You get to go to bed with a new woman every night.


The really nice thing about Alzheimers is you get to hide your own
Easter eggs.

[ShawnD2112]

Right. Got all that, guys, thanks. I guess I've always just posted the way
Outlook Express defaults, which seems to be top posting. Can I change that
default or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?

I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a thread,
as I've already read the original post and just want to read someone's
reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.

Cheers,
Shawn
"Joachim Feise" > wrote in message
...
> ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
>
>> I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
>> What am I missing?
>
> A: No.
> Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>
> Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
>
> -Joe

[Robert Briggs]

[Top-posting fixed at no extra charge; NGs trimmed]

Dave S wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> > Dave S wrote:
> >
> > > Thats maybe the 4th time this year I've seen those...

So I guess your posting provided the fifth ...

> > And do you have any sort of awards for top-posting idiots who
> > can't be bothered to trim their quotes?
>
> Nope.. actually I dont. Thanks for asking though.

It is, IMNSHO, singularly daft to complain about seeing something
for "maybe the 4th time this year" while hurling *yet another* full
copy at your own readers.

For context, Craig's introductory paragraph would have done fine;
including just the first example (a short one) would also have been
acceptable.

[Morgans]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote

Can I change that
> default

Nope

or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?

Yep

>
> I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a
thread,
> as I've already read the original post and just want to read someone's
> reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.
>
> Cheers,
> Shawn


Get rid of all but you want to have the next reader to see, to refresh his
memory, and what you are replying to.

See how I did it? Clear to everyone. And shortened.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/11/2004

[Bob Ward]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:34:39 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:

>Right. Got all that, guys, thanks. I guess I've always just posted the way
>Outlook Express defaults, which seems to be top posting. Can I change that
>default or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?
>
>I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a thread,
>as I've already read the original post and just want to read someone's
>reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.
>
>Cheers,
>Shawn
>"Joachim Feise" > wrote in message
...
>> ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
>>
>>> I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
>>> What am I missing?
>>
>> A: No.
>> Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>>
>> Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
>>
>> -Joe
>


I wish wee could say you'll be missed, but that remains to be seen.

[ShawnD2112]

"Bob Ward" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:34:39 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> > wrote:
>
>>Right. Got all that, guys, thanks. I guess I've always just posted the
>>way
>>Outlook Express defaults, which seems to be top posting. Can I change
>>that
>>default or do I just page down and delete bits as appropriate?
>>
>
>
> I wish wee could say you'll be missed, but that remains to be seen.
>
>
?

[Darrel Toepfer]

Morgans wrote:
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote
>
>> Can I change that default?
>
> Nope

Yes...
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/downloads/OEQuoteFix1192.exe

Crossposts to: rec.radio.scanner & misc.consumers removed, as I don't
post there...

[[email protected]]

Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up
with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.

If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one
inconvenienced.


On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:58:55 -0800, Joachim Feise >
wrote:

>ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
>
>> I've never
>> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>> missing?
>
>A: No.
>Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>
>Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
>
>-Joe

[Morgans]

Caution: This is a download from a source I am not familiar with.

Caution:
This is a download, for a site I am not familiar with. Download at you own
risk; I know what I will do.

OK, let me say that there is not a built in fix for top posting defaults in
OE
--
Jim in NC


"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Morgans wrote:
> > "ShawnD2112" > wrote
> >
> >> Can I change that default?
> >
> > Nope
>
> Yes...
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/downloads/OEQuoteFix1192.exe
>
> Crossposts to: rec.radio.scanner & misc.consumers removed, as I don't
> post there...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/12/2004

[Morgans]

> wrote

> Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
> latest communication is at the top odf the stack.

I am not.

>If you're keeping up
> with the conversation,

Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark with the
relavent material.

>you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
> see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.

By all means, for one liners, top post, but can you see my response as a top
post? It would look like this:
****************************************
I am not. Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark
with the relavent material. By all means, for one liners, top post, but can
you see my response as a top post?

Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up
with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.

If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one
inconvenienced.


On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:58:55 -0800, Joachim Feise >
wrote:

>ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
>
>> I've never
>> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>> missing?
>
>A: No.
>Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>
>Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
>
>-Joe



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/12/2004

[M.S.]

Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already
read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at
the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a
minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are
included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's
proper context.

What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the
people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm
speaking of those with English as their native language here), including
proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts,
but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on
perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others
to conform to my personal standards.

It just isn't that big a deal.

M

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> ShawnD2112 wrote:
> >
> > I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
> > What am I missing?
>
> Two reasons:
>
> One, as a thread progresses, a mix of top and bottom posting becomes
> confusing when someone wants to look back through the quoted material.
> Since most posters to newsgroups bottom post, that is the de facto
> standard method. Email users typically top post, so that becomes the
> standard for email.
>
> Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
> editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
> often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
> quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
> what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
> posts under control.

[Bob Ward]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:01:21 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:14:49 GMT, Bob Ward >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:47:01 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob,
>>>
>>>That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
>>>understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>>>missing?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Shawn
>>
>>The normal sequence of reading, processing, and understanding the
>>conversation.
>>
>>The only place where the question is normally seen after the answer is
>>on Jeopardy - and you're no Alex Trebeck
>>
>
> I assume, then, that in a conversation, you fully repeat the
>prior speaker's points before adding your own comment at the bottom.


I might summarize the conversation for someone who just joined in, but
you're being an asshole just because you can.

Perhaps you're not aware that email and usenet are two different forms
of communication, with different propigation rates. Not everyone has
just read the same missive that you are responding to. It's easier to
killfile you than to expect you to follow the conventions adhered to
by others.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." > wrote
in >::


>What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
>It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like.

You've obviously never attempted to use Google Advanced Group Search
<http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en> to follow a
message thread that has taken place over a period of weeks. If you
feel your contributions are worth archiving, why not make the
researcher's job easier by placing your followup articles in
chronological order with the newest at the bottom?

Of course, if you're articles don't contain INFORMATION of any
consequence, you're probably not concerned about how they are
archived.

[Morgans]

I just killfile them.

Now, tell me, what was the above comment saying what would cause me to kill
file them?

Because someone top posts? Because people won't use proper English? Or is
it the lack of punctuation some people use?

Top posting, as you see, does not do well at making it clear what the
comment the poster is answering. Also, if you have many folks that are
killfiled involved in the conversation, or your response is more than a day
or so old, it is sometime very tricky figuring out who you are responding
to.

There is also the fact that 90% plus do not top post. Is the rest of the
world wrong?
--
Jim in NC

"M.S." > wrote in message
...
> Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have
already
> read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at
> the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a
> minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are
> included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in
it's
> proper context.
>
> What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
> It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the
> people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm
> speaking of those with English as their native language here), including
> proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts,
> but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on
> perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others
> to conform to my personal standards.
>
> It just isn't that big a deal.
>
> M
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ShawnD2112 wrote:
> > >
> > > I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
> > > What am I missing?
> >
> > Two reasons:
> >
> > One, as a thread progresses, a mix of top and bottom posting becomes
> > confusing when someone wants to look back through the quoted material.
> > Since most posters to newsgroups bottom post, that is the de facto
> > standard method. Email users typically top post, so that becomes the
> > standard for email.
> >
> > Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
> > editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
> > often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
> > quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
> > what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
> > posts under control.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004

[Darrel Toepfer]

Morgans wrote:

> Caution: This is a download from a source I am not familiar with.
>
> Caution:
> This is a download, for a site I am not familiar with. Download at you own
> risk; I know what I will do.
>
> OK, let me say that there is not a built in fix for top posting defaults in
> OE

The download is safe and its history is documented on the website, I
used it until I switched to Mozilla...

[BUFF5200]

Back a few wars ago, a F-86 Sabre turns off the active and comes
nose to nose with a C-124 Globemaster on the taxiway.

F-86 jockey radios tower and asks "What is the C-124's intentions?"

The Globemaster pilot starts the clamshell nose doors opening,
then keys the mike and says "I'm going to eat you."

Craig Lewis wrote:
> Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
> will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
> between airline pilots and control towers around the world.
>
> Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"
>
> Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
> ================================================== ==========
>
> "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."
>
> "Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"
>
> "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
> ================================================== ==========
>>From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
> "I'm bored!"
>
> Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
> yourself immediately!"
>
> Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
> ================================================== ==========
> O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
> is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."
>
> United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
> got the little Fokker in sight."
> ================================================== ==========
> A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
> attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
> was your last known position?"
>
> Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
> ================================================== ==========
> A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
> long roll out after touching down.
>
> San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
> turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
> you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
> make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
> landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
> "a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
> he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
>
> "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
> approach."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
> and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
> off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
> was the problem?"
>
> "The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
> explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
> pilot."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
> overheard the following:
>
> Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
> time?"
>
> Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
> English."
>
> Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
> in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
>
> Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
> "Because you lost the bloody war."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
> on frequency 124.7"
>
> Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
> way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
> far end of the runway."
>
> Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
> contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
> from Eastern 702?"
>
> Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
> and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."
>
> ================================================== ========
>
> One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
> hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
> landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
> Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
> the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
> make it all by yourself?"
>
> The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
> back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
> landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
> ================================================== ==========
>
> While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
> Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
> came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
> controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
> where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
> Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
> I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
> D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
> crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
> everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
> right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
> progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
> you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
> tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"
>
> "Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
> control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
> verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
> the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
> every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
> Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
> microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

[Newps]

Me too. I top post to people who don't like it.

Mark wrote:

> Good. Add me to your list. That way you won't have to read anything that
> makes sense and flows properly.
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:43:06 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:30:47 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I just killfile them.
>>
>>I killfile top-posters, too.
>
>

[Jennifer]

"SYBIL-IZED" > wrote in message >...
> We will let the Mythbusters settle that matter shall we...LOL

No need, there's been a Snopes entry on it for years ;)

http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/squawk.asp


--
Jennifer

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 at 06:47:01 in message
>, ShawnD2112
> wrote:

>That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
>understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>missing?

Top posting is common in business emails where people like to keep the
whole exchange together. I understand that usage but I feel that in many
cases bottom posting would still make more sense.

But for usenet the discussions or exchanges are more like conversation
and it is logical to put comments after statements and answers after
questions. To me this is natural; I find it difficult to understand why
some people don't agree! :-)

However 'evil' is much too strong; I would prefer 'tiresome'. Of course
this being usenet some people persist in top posting just because other
people don't like it. Others do it on 'principle' because they don't
want to be 'dictated to' or criticised. But no one can force you to do
it, or not do it on usenet.

Repeating lengthy messages just to write a couple of lines at the top is
perhaps even more 'tiresome'. And continuing to do that for reply after
reply so that the quotes get deeper and deeper is even worse.

I try to quote only as much as I need to make it clear what I am
commenting on, and to [snip] the rest indicating where cuts have been
made so that previous messages in the thread can be investigated. I have
not done that here as I consider it unnecessary.

YMMV on any or all of the above.

Cross posting removed.
--
David CL Francis

[Morgans]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote

> I killfile top-posters, too.
>
> It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
> trying to say.

I was not really saying that I kilfile top posters. I was using another
post to illustrate how illogical top posting is, but I usually struggle
through, unless the content makes it "unworthwhile".
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004

[M.S.]

Illogical? Nope, not really. What's illogical is how upset people get over
it. BTW, all but one of the responders to my post top-posted their replies,
and apparently nobody (including myself, of course) seem to have had any
problems understanding.

You want to bottom-post, go ahead. I want to top-post, I will. If this is
the biggest problem people have in their life, they are VERY lucky people!

M

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
>
> > I killfile top-posters, too.
> >
> > It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
> > trying to say.
>
> I was not really saying that I kilfile top posters. I was using another
> post to illustrate how illogical top posting is, but I usually struggle
> through, unless the content makes it "unworthwhile".
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
>
>

[PJ Hunt]

If I understand this correctly then your previous messages was a 'top post',
as is the one I'm sending right now. Is that correct?

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with this type of posting as 1)
the reader does not have to scroll through god knows how much text to read
the new reply that he clicked on, and 2) if they failed to read the
original or have forgotten it, they can then scroll down to catch up.

What seems particularly annoying to me is when people post the original at
the top of their reply and I have to scroll through all that just to get to
their response. If the original was only a line or two, it's no big deal,
but often it goes on and on and it gets tiresome and annoying to have to
scroll through it over and over with each response.

There are a few names that I recognize on this board who are notorious for
doing this and when I recognize them, I simply mark them as read and move
right past them without reading. I'm curious why people think this is
necessary or helpful. Is it something with the way that some readers are set
up?

I have read this newsgroup for many years and I cant recall ever forgetting
what a topic was about once I've seen the topic. I suppose if I did forget,
all I'd have to do is go back to the original and read it (once) to refresh
my memory, not each time someone replies.

I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's
better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.

PJ


============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================


"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> Top posting is not inherently enefarious, but like any tool, it can be
used for good or for evil. In cases where the response requires context, it
is
> good to give a hint of the context before the reply by quoting a well
selected part of the original post, and posting your reply below. Often the
> post has already been read (though forgotten) by the reader, but often it
has not yet reached the reader and the context is essential or your own
> point gets lost.
>
> However, if your post stands on its own even in the absence of context,
then it is often better to top post. Those who want additional context can
> see it below, but most people will not need this context and can just move
on or reply after seeing your words. Most people will not need this
> context =because= your post is self-contained; if your post is not self
contained then obviously this doesn't apply in that case.
>
> I suppose that problems arise because one =thinks= their post is self
contained, (after all, the poster knows the context) but it in fact is not.
I
> won't venture a guess as to how many people think how many posts are how
far past that line, except to say that it appears that enough do to sustain
> this usenet perpetual motion machine.
>
> Never confuse motion with action.
> Never confuse action with results.
>
> And never confuse results with what you wanted in the first place. :)
>
> Jose
> (note - I only follow rec.aviation.piloting, of the 3 groups I replied to)
>
> > ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
> >
> >> I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
What am I missing?
> >
> >
> > A: No.
> > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
> >
> > Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
> >
> > -Joe
>
>
> --
> Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Markus Voget]

"PJ Hunt" > wrote:

> If I understand this correctly then your previous messages was a 'top
> post', as is the one I'm sending right now. Is that correct? [...]

Indeed.

> I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's
> better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.

PJ,

your message nicely points to the core of the argument. In general, top-
posting reverses the normal flow of a (usenet) discussion and thus should
be avoided whenever possible. However if people cannot be bothered to trim
the quoted message down to the essential parts, then sifting through (long)
bottom-posts becomes even more annoying than reading top-posts.

Greetings,
Markus

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:18:12 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>ShawnD2112 wrote:
>>
>> I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
>> What am I missing?
>
>Two reasons:

<smip>

>Two, top posters often quote the entire text below their reply without
>editing it. That makes the replies longer than they need to be. You
>often see a one line "me too" post, followed by several hundred lines of
>quote. Bottom posters seem to be more into the habit of quoting only
>what is necessary to retain continuity, so it keeps the length of the
>posts under control.

Dreamer.

[Robert Briggs]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> > ShawnD2112 wrote:
> >
> > > Can I change that default?
> >
> > Nope

> Crossposts to: rec.radio.scanner & misc.consumers removed, as I
> don't post there...

The fact that *you* "don't post there" is quite irrelevant to the
wisdom or otherwise of removing the crossposts.

In this specific case, you seem to have been addressing Morgans and
ShawnD2112 in particular. Therefore your article should be posted
to *at least* one NG frequented by *each* of them. (As it happens,
I *think* that both frequent r.a.p.)

By all means trim spurious crossposts, but consider carefully which
NGs any individual "target readers" (such as Morgans and ShawnD2112)
are likely to follow.

[Bob Ward]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:14:55 -0900, "PJ Hunt"
> wrote:

>
>I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's
>better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.

That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

[PJ Hunt]

Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================


"Bob Ward" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:14:55 -0900, "PJ Hunt"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's
> >better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.
>
> That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.
>
>

[Robert Briggs]

[Previous text and attributions tidied somewhat, but sequence
deliberately retained]

PJ Hunt wrote:
>
> Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.

> Bob Ward wrote:
> > PJ Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why
> > > it's better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.
> >
> > That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.

Do you see what has happened here?

Simplifying somewhat, the structure is something like:

> Comment 2
>
> > > Original text
> >
> > Comment 1

Yuck!

It is clearly preferable to maintain a *consistent* pattern, either
*always* placing new text before old ("top-posting"), or *always*
placing new text after old ("bottom-posting").

For *very good* historical reasons, the convention on Usenet is to
place new text *after* the old text on which you are commenting,
snipping out *surplus* old text and, when commenting on a number of
fragments, placing each comment immediately after the relevant bit
of the old text.

This way, reading an article from top to bottom should make sense
in a question-and-answer kind of way. Readers who are sufficiently
familiar with the thread can skip over the quoted text, but it will
generally be available for reference simply by looking a little way
up the screen, rather as one sometimes looks back at the previous
paragraph in a book.

*One* of the reasons for quoting and commenting in this way is that
Usenet articles are *not* guaranteed to arrive at a newsserver in
the "correct" order - heck, they are not *guaranteed* to arrive at
all - and propagation delays can be quite substantial: Google take
their time even now, and once upon a time delays measured in *days*
were common.

In the early days of Usenet, *slow* and *expensive* net connections
were very common, which made snipping out excess quoted material a
Very Good Thing. Things aren't *as bad* these days, but some users
are still on slowish connections where extra bytes cost extra bucks,
so good snippage is still very good practice.

Usenet and email are two *very* different media: Usenet is a form of
*broadcast* medium where readers often find themselves dealing with
fragments of *many* threads at once; email is basically a one-to-one
medium (yes, spammers abuse it as a broadcast medium) in which you
can be far more certain that your correspondent is already familiar
with the topic of your reply, so that *appending* the previous text
for reference makes more sense. That said, interleaving old and new
text in email responses can be very useful - particularly where the
discussion *is* a series of questions and answers.

This is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I hope you can now
see why "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

[Bill Denton]

Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you
open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no
scrolling to the bottom required.

Much more convenient...


"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> [Previous text and attributions tidied somewhat, but sequence
> deliberately retained]
>
> PJ Hunt wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.
>
> > Bob Ward wrote:
> > > PJ Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why
> > > > it's better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.
> > >
> > > That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.
>
> Do you see what has happened here?
>
> Simplifying somewhat, the structure is something like:
>
> > Comment 2
> >
> > > > Original text
> > >
> > > Comment 1
>
> Yuck!
>
> It is clearly preferable to maintain a *consistent* pattern, either
> *always* placing new text before old ("top-posting"), or *always*
> placing new text after old ("bottom-posting").
>
> For *very good* historical reasons, the convention on Usenet is to
> place new text *after* the old text on which you are commenting,
> snipping out *surplus* old text and, when commenting on a number of
> fragments, placing each comment immediately after the relevant bit
> of the old text.
>
> This way, reading an article from top to bottom should make sense
> in a question-and-answer kind of way. Readers who are sufficiently
> familiar with the thread can skip over the quoted text, but it will
> generally be available for reference simply by looking a little way
> up the screen, rather as one sometimes looks back at the previous
> paragraph in a book.
>
> *One* of the reasons for quoting and commenting in this way is that
> Usenet articles are *not* guaranteed to arrive at a newsserver in
> the "correct" order - heck, they are not *guaranteed* to arrive at
> all - and propagation delays can be quite substantial: Google take
> their time even now, and once upon a time delays measured in *days*
> were common.
>
> In the early days of Usenet, *slow* and *expensive* net connections
> were very common, which made snipping out excess quoted material a
> Very Good Thing. Things aren't *as bad* these days, but some users
> are still on slowish connections where extra bytes cost extra bucks,
> so good snippage is still very good practice.
>
> Usenet and email are two *very* different media: Usenet is a form of
> *broadcast* medium where readers often find themselves dealing with
> fragments of *many* threads at once; email is basically a one-to-one
> medium (yes, spammers abuse it as a broadcast medium) in which you
> can be far more certain that your correspondent is already familiar
> with the topic of your reply, so that *appending* the previous text
> for reference makes more sense. That said, interleaving old and new
> text in email responses can be very useful - particularly where the
> discussion *is* a series of questions and answers.
>
> This is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I hope you can now
> see why "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

[Greasy Rider]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:23:29 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> proclaimed:
>Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
>say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.
>
>Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you
>open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no
>scrolling to the bottom required.
>
>Much more convenient...


Answer: Because it disrupts the flow of thought.
Question: Why is top posting such a pain in the ass?

[Dave Holford]

It's just like paper files.

Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on
top.

Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener,
take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then
replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It
keeps them happy and occupied!

Dave,



Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
> say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.
>
> Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you
> open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no
> scrolling to the bottom required.
>
> Much more convenient...
>
> "Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [Previous text and attributions tidied somewhat, but sequence
> > deliberately retained]
> >
> > PJ Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for that well thought out informative response to my post.
> >
> > > Bob Ward wrote:
> > > > PJ Hunt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why
> > > > > it's better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.
> > > >
> > > > That's fine - a lot of us won't see it anyway.
> >
> > Do you see what has happened here?
> >
> > Simplifying somewhat, the structure is something like:
> >
> > > Comment 2
> > >
> > > > > Original text
> > > >
> > > > Comment 1
> >
> > Yuck!
> >
> > It is clearly preferable to maintain a *consistent* pattern, either
> > *always* placing new text before old ("top-posting"), or *always*
> > placing new text after old ("bottom-posting").
> >
> > For *very good* historical reasons, the convention on Usenet is to
> > place new text *after* the old text on which you are commenting,
> > snipping out *surplus* old text and, when commenting on a number of
> > fragments, placing each comment immediately after the relevant bit
> > of the old text.
> >
> > This way, reading an article from top to bottom should make sense
> > in a question-and-answer kind of way. Readers who are sufficiently
> > familiar with the thread can skip over the quoted text, but it will
> > generally be available for reference simply by looking a little way
> > up the screen, rather as one sometimes looks back at the previous
> > paragraph in a book.
> >
> > *One* of the reasons for quoting and commenting in this way is that
> > Usenet articles are *not* guaranteed to arrive at a newsserver in
> > the "correct" order - heck, they are not *guaranteed* to arrive at
> > all - and propagation delays can be quite substantial: Google take
> > their time even now, and once upon a time delays measured in *days*
> > were common.
> >
> > In the early days of Usenet, *slow* and *expensive* net connections
> > were very common, which made snipping out excess quoted material a
> > Very Good Thing. Things aren't *as bad* these days, but some users
> > are still on slowish connections where extra bytes cost extra bucks,
> > so good snippage is still very good practice.
> >
> > Usenet and email are two *very* different media: Usenet is a form of
> > *broadcast* medium where readers often find themselves dealing with
> > fragments of *many* threads at once; email is basically a one-to-one
> > medium (yes, spammers abuse it as a broadcast medium) in which you
> > can be far more certain that your correspondent is already familiar
> > with the topic of your reply, so that *appending* the previous text
> > for reference makes more sense. That said, interleaving old and new
> > text in email responses can be very useful - particularly where the
> > discussion *is* a series of questions and answers.
> >
> > This is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I hope you can now
> > see why "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.

[Marc VanHeyningen]

Thus said "PJ Hunt" >:
>I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's
>better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.

It isn't. If you're too lazy to edit the quoted content to include just
the relevant portions that you're replying to, then by all means don't
bottom post.

You could top-post, but better still, just don't post at all. There
are plenty of other posters who value the reader's time enough to edit
properly.

[Morgans]

"Bill Denton" > wrote

> Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
> say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.


So why is it that you se the MAJORITY of usenet posts, using bottom posting
mixed in style? Does that not matter at all to you?


> Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you
> open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no
> scrolling to the bottom required.


If, and only if, you only have one comment to make. Top posting does not
work any other way.


> Much more convenient...


The only thing convenient thing to do, is for you to **** people off, as you
are doing by your illogical insistence that you are right, and the other 90%
are wrong.

Right now, I think it will be more logical for me to plonk yur a**.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004

[Bill Denton]

Perhaps the majority of the usenet posts you see are bottom posted, but the
majority I see are top posted.

And there are a tremendous number of newsgroups out there; I seriously doubt
that either of us have seen even a small fraction of them.

When I visit a newsgroup where bottom-posting seems to be the convention, I
bottom-post; it's not a religion with me.

But it appears that most top-post on this newsgroup, so I top-post here.

And my initial comment: "Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on
Usenet only among people who say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet"
was intended to be humorous; I picked up: ""bottom-posting" is conventional
on Usenet" from someone else on this thread. I'm sorry you failed to see the
humor on it.




"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote
>
> > Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people
who
> > say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.
>
>
> So why is it that you se the MAJORITY of usenet posts, using bottom
posting
> mixed in style? Does that not matter at all to you?
>
>
> > Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread,
you
> > open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message,
no
> > scrolling to the bottom required.
>
>
> If, and only if, you only have one comment to make. Top posting does not
> work any other way.
>
>
> > Much more convenient...
>
>
> The only thing convenient thing to do, is for you to **** people off, as
you
> are doing by your illogical insistence that you are right, and the other
90%
> are wrong.
>
> Right now, I think it will be more logical for me to plonk yur a**.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004
>
>

[PJ Hunt]

Robert, Thank you for the explanation.

I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now
I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm
referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never
seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then
perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and
expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it?

Keep in mind I'm not talking about quoting a portion of the message to bring
attention to a specific matter. That makes total sense. However, just as I'm
sure that no one here starts reading a book or the newspaper from the very
beginning every they set it down and then pick it up again, I don't see why
they feel we should have to re-read the original message over and over again
every someone post a response to the original poster. Just imagine what it
would be like if this was how we sent, received and re-sent letters to
people.

Is there still more here that I'm missing or is this just a matter of some
people have done it a certain way for so long and they're so set in their
ways that nothing is going to convince them to change? Personally I don't
really care if they change or not, if I don't want to scroll through all the
previous message they have posted and re-posted, I just bypass it, which is
what I find myself doing often.

Thanks again for your reply.

PJ

[Bill Denton]

That's why, if I am going to intersperse comments through a message, I will
always top-post something like: "My comments in text".





"Never anonymous Bud" > wrote in message
...
> Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Bill Denton"
> on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:23:29 -0600
> spoke:
>
> >Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people
who
> >say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.
>
> WOW! That's so, uh, you know, STUPID!
>
> >Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you
> >open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no
> >scrolling to the bottom required.
>
> And MISS the fact that the person replied to OTHER segments below
> the first paragraph or two...
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.

[dxAce]

Bill Denton wrote:

> Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people who
> say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.
>
> Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread, you
> open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message, no
> scrolling to the bottom required.
>
> Much more convenient...

Why don't you take a hike, 'tard boy?

[Bill Denton]

Thank you for your intelligent comment. Much better than the typical
troll...




"dxAce" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
> > Actually, "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet only among people
who
> > say "bottom-posting" is conventional on Usenet.
> >
> > Most everyone else top-posts. If you are reading a top-posted thread,
you
> > open a message, read the top few lines, then move to the next message,
no
> > scrolling to the bottom required.
> >
> > Much more convenient...
>
> Why don't you take a hike, 'tard boy?
>
>

[Lord Floyd]

(Marc VanHeyningen) wrote in news:cnlnm8$g2a
:

> properly.
>
>

Q. What's more moronic than arguing the relative merits of top vs
bottom posting?

A. Spreading the thread across multiple news groups and being quite
off topic in all.

--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here
And whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back

[Jo Anne Slaven]

Dave Holford wrote:

>It's just like paper files.
>
>
Yup.

>Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on
>top.
>
>
Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the
latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach.

>Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener,
>take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then
>replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It
>keeps them happy and occupied!
>
>
People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making
it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the
documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse
people.

Jo Anne



>Dave,
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:08:35 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
>> latest communication is at the top odf the stack.
>
>I am not.
>
>>If you're keeping up
>> with the conversation,
>
>Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark with the
>relavent material.
>
>>you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
>> see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.
>
>By all means, for one liners, top post, but can you see my response as a top
>post? It would look like this:
>****************************************

I guess I forgot to mention I also believe in interleaved
posting, where there are separate ressponses to different parts of a
longer posting. I also bottom post if the prior post is so short that
my comments are no more than a screen or so down. However, if there's
only a short response, I will not roll down a hundred lines to satisfy
the lunatics who insist that there is one and only one way to respond
and that way, goddamn all other opinions, is bottom posting.

In short, all three modes have their place.

>I am not. Has nothing to do with it. It has to do with puting the remark
>with the relavent material. By all means, for one liners, top post, but can
>you see my response as a top post?
>
>Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
>latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up
>with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
>see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.
>
>If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one
>inconvenienced.
>
>
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:58:55 -0800, Joachim Feise >
>wrote:
>
>>ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:
>>
>>> I've never
>>> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>>> missing?
>>
>>A: No.
>>Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>>
>>Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.
>>
>>-Joe
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/12/2004
>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:06:02 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:01:21 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:14:49 GMT, Bob Ward >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:47:01 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
>>>>understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
>>>>missing?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Shawn
>>>
>>>The normal sequence of reading, processing, and understanding the
>>>conversation.
>>>
>>>The only place where the question is normally seen after the answer is
>>>on Jeopardy - and you're no Alex Trebeck
>>>
>>
>> I assume, then, that in a conversation, you fully repeat the
>>prior speaker's points before adding your own comment at the bottom.
>
>
>I might summarize the conversation for someone who just joined in, but
>you're being an asshole just because you can.

FOAD, jerkoff.

>
>Perhaps you're not aware that email and usenet are two different forms
>of communication, with different propigation rates. Not everyone has
>just read the same missive that you are responding to.

Then they should be willing to suffer a little inconvenience
for the benefit of regular readers who have been paying attention.

> It's easier to
>killfile you than to expect you to follow the conventions adhered to
>by others.

Your call. I never demand to be read. Others who agree with my
conventions will never see your bottom-posted drivel.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." > wrote:

>Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already
>read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at
>the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a
>minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are
>included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's
>proper context.
>
>What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
>It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the
>people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm
>speaking of those with English as their native language here), including
>proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts,
>but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on
>perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others
>to conform to my personal standards.
>
>It just isn't that big a deal.

Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off
from lack of acrimony. :-)

[Dave Holford]

Response at the bottom!

Jo Anne Slaven wrote:
>
> Dave Holford wrote:
>
> >It's just like paper files.
> >
> >
> Yup.
>
> >Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on
> >top.
> >
> >
> Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the
> latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach.
>
> >Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener,
> >take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then
> >replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It
> >keeps them happy and occupied!
> >
> >



> People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making
> it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the
> documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse
> people.
>

Exactly - the latest to arrive goes on top.
Just like the "IN" box on a desk which contains responses to
correspondence.
It is a stack, not a queue.

Actually I agree with Bill Denton. In those newsgroups where top posting
is the standard I try to top post and in those where bottom posting is
the standard I try to bottom post.

Sometimes when I'm more interested in the content than the policy I get
it wrong. It's like arguing religion - pointless, the believers believe
they are right and nothing will convert them. It makes for interminable
threads whose content bears no relationship to the header whatsoever -
how that helps to not confuse people escapes me. One would expect that
if helping peers find information quickly was even a minor consideration
the first action would be to make the header relevant.


But, it does provide some light entertainment on a slow day.

Dave

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, PJ Hunt
> wrote:

> I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now
> I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm
> referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never
> seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then
> perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and
> expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it?

Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
Africa and the South Pole.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Roger]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:01:51 GMT, wrote:

There are even groups (Hallicrafters for one) that encourage top
posting for their blind participants. So for all the blind pilots....

>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." > wrote:
>
>>Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already
>>read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at
>>the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a
>>minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are
>>included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's
>>proper context.
>>
>>What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
>>It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the
>>people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm
>>speaking of those with English as their native language here), including
>>proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts,
>>but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on
>>perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others
>>to conform to my personal standards.
>>
>>It just isn't that big a deal.
>
> Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off
>from lack of acrimony. :-)

Three to go.

Although I prefer to intersperse comments.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[mike regish]

It's the net Nazi way to weed out the lazy. I prefer reading top posts, too,
but the old timers set the standards and don't want their authority
questioned.

mike regish

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
k...
> Bob,
>
> That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
> missing?
>
> Cheers,
> Shawn

[mike regish]

Bingo! My feelings exactly, but you'll never convince the net Nazis of that.

mike regish

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
k...


>
> I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a
> thread, as I've already read the original post and just want to read
> someone's reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.
>
> Cheers,
> Shawn

[mike regish]

Good point. But again, you'll never convince the net Nazis.

mike regish

> wrote in message
...
>
> Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
> latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up
> with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
> see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.
>
> If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one
> inconvenienced.
>

[PJ Hunt]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in

> Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
> Africa and the South Pole.

Well that makes absolutely no sense at all. Just as the majority of excuses
I've seen for top posting.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

[PJ Hunt]

Should have been:

Just as the majority of excuses I've seen against top posting.

PJ

[Roger]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:19:03 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." > wrote
>in >::
>
>
>>What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
>>It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like.
>
>You've obviously never attempted to use Google Advanced Group Search
><http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en> to follow a
>message thread that has taken place over a period of weeks. If you
>feel your contributions are worth archiving, why not make the
>researcher's job easier by placing your followup articles in
>chronological order with the newest at the bottom?

I'm not sure how google orders their information, but on many servers
it's pure accident if the posts fall in order. It's not at all
uncommon to see two or three answers before the original shows up.
A search based on order should do it's own ordering by date/time. If
it doesn't, it's broken.

Threads often do not follow in order which can be very confusing when
answers are posted with no quoting.


>
>Of course, if you're articles don't contain INFORMATION of any
>consequence, you're probably not concerned about how they are
>archived.

You just eliminated over 99% of the posts in the archives.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>

[Omega]

: That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
: understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
: missing?

It depends on the group. Here in USENET world, bottom posting is common.
However in military circles, top posting is normal and most readers would
not see your reply if you posted on the bottom (it is an expedience thing).

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:24:49 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>That's why, if I am going to intersperse comments through a message, I will
>always top-post something like: "My comments in text".


For the benefit of those to dim to dope it out by observation?

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:

>In article >, PJ Hunt
> wrote:
>
>> I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now
>> I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm
>> referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never
>> seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then
>> perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and
>> expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it?
>
>Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
>Africa and the South Pole.


And the means of propagation without the internet is ...?

[ameijers]

"Omega" > wrote in message
news:348od.65578$V41.36060@attbi_s52...
>
> : That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've
never
> : understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
> : missing?
>
> It depends on the group. Here in USENET world, bottom posting is common.
> However in military circles, top posting is normal and most readers would
> not see your reply if you posted on the bottom (it is an expedience
thing).
>
Does DoD still have any internal newgroups or newsfeeds? My command gave up
their DoD newsfeed close to a decade ago, so I lost visibility of it. Most
of the DoD content I used to get from RN and VN or dialup BBS's (remember
those?) soon showed up on web pages. Speaking of 'remember whens' (in
answer to another posters question about Usenet propogation), does Fidonet
still exist?

aem sends.....
(just another old fart who started on Usenet with a text interface and a
green screen, on a hard-wired dumb vt-100 or dialing in to the UNIX server
on an 8086 with a lightning-fast 1200 baud modem.)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:08:45 GMT, "ameijers"
> wrote:

> ... Speaking of 'remember whens' (in
>answer to another posters question about Usenet propogation), does Fidonet
>still exist?

I think it does: <http://www.fidonet.org/>

>aem sends.....
>(just another old fart who started on Usenet with a text interface and a
>green screen, on a hard-wired dumb vt-100 or dialing in to the UNIX server
>on an 8086 with a lightning-fast 1200 baud modem.)

Hah! I started on a Victor 9000 8088 and a 300 baud modem in
1984. (Hmm. I'm sure about the Victor and the CPU. Please
don't make me swear in court about the modem.)

How the decades pass when you're messing with technology!

Marty

[Robert Briggs]

[NGs trimmed, as I now see an article from PJH in r.a.p alone]

PJ Hunt wrote:

> I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top ...

In general, that is not (and never has been) the proper way to do it.

The previous text should be snipped (or otherwise summarised) so as to
give sufficient context for the new comment to make sense.

> ... now I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today?
> I'm referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have
> never seen a response posted before I've seen the original post.

Matters of expense, propagation times, and reliability of propagation
are *less* of an issue than they were in the early days of Usenet, but
it remains desirable to provide *some* context, *usually* without
reposting the whole of the previous text.

> ... just as I'm sure that no one here starts reading a book ... from the
> very beginning every they set it down and then pick it up again, I don't
> see why they feel we should have to re-read the original message over and
> over again every someone post a response to the original poster.

If quoted text is properly marked then it is very easy to skim over any
with which you are sufficiently familiar, but it is readily available to
provide useful context without having to dig out the quoted article,
which *may* not be present on your newsserver, especially if you have
been on holiday for a while.

[clifto]

"I'll see you at Linda's wedding."
"Well, see ya soon."
"Congratulations!"
"Ten thousand a year."
"How much?"
"Got a really big raise this time."
"Sorry to hear it. How's the job?"
"She's not feeling well. Flu, I think."
"Same as ever. How's yours?"
"How's your wife?"
"They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now."
"Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?"
"Good, and you?"
"Bill! How the heck are you?"

ShawnD2112 wrote:
> That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
> understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
> missing?

--
Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics
<http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm>

[lance smith]

(Jennifer) wrote in message >...
> "SYBIL-IZED" > wrote in message >...
> > We will let the Mythbusters settle that matter shall we...LOL
>
> No need, there's been a Snopes entry on it for years ;)
>
> http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/squawk.asp



But just because it's on snopes doesn't mean it's a fake! Snopes.com
give this an "identifies a statement of indeterminate origin."

p.s. the snopes.com entry has some lines that I haven't seen before.
Scroll to the bottom.

-lance smith

[mike regish]

That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too
difficult for you?

mike regish

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:30:47 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>I just killfile them.
>
> I killfile top-posters, too.
>
> It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
> trying to say.
>
> --
> Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04>, mike regish wrote:
> That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too
> difficult for you?

The problem with top posting is:
(a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation
bottom-to-top
(b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two
line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant
messages. Now you might say 'well, 50K - big deal' but replicated across
tens of thousands of news servers... not to mention most people STILL
are not on broadband and quote a few still pay for dialup by the minute.
A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of
untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Robert Morien]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> In article <qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04>, mike regish wrote:
> > That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too
> > difficult for you?
>
> The problem with top posting is:
> (a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation
> bottom-to-top
> (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
> are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two
> line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant
> messages. Now you might say 'well, 50K - big deal' but replicated across
> tens of thousands of news servers... not to mention most people STILL
> are not on broadband and quote a few still pay for dialup by the minute.
> A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of
> untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for).

And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Robert Morien > wrote:

> And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?

yes.

--
Bob Noel

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Robert Morien wrote:
> In article >,
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
<snip>
>> A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of
>> untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for).
>
> And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?

Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective
bits and comment right underneath the point you're replying to), by the
very nature of the activity there is an incentive to trim the quotations
down.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jose]

> The problem with top posting is:
> (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
> are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two
> line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant
> messages.

I'd rather see the one-liner at the top, and then I know to skip the rest, than to claw my way down to the bottom to do so.

I have no problem with an appropriate mix of top, bottom, and interleaved postings. Each have their merits.

Jose
(rec.radio.scanner and misc.consumers trimmed)
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:58:34 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article <qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04>, mike regish wrote:
>> That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too
>> difficult for you?
>
>The problem with top posting is:
>(a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation
>bottom-to-top
>(b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
>are quoting. Usenet isn't email, and repeated top-posting leads to two
>line comments on top of 50K long top-posted trails of redundant
>messages. Now you might say 'well, 50K - big deal' but replicated across
>tens of thousands of news servers... not to mention most people STILL
>are not on broadband and quote a few still pay for dialup by the minute.
>A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of
>untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for).


And bottom posting doesn't?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:44:23 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, Robert Morien wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Dylan Smith > wrote:
><snip>
<and again>
>Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective

That I just don't believe. Many times and even in this group I've
scrolled down through pages of text to find a two or three line answer
to the whole thing.

OTOH I've never forgotten to snip the irrelevant text like a lot of
posters. <:-))

The problem with the top posted one liner is you need to look to see
if that was the only comment.

<and again>

Although this appears to be bottom posted, it was really a piece out
of the middle. (selective quoting) with the whole bottom snipped.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Robert Briggs]

[Long lines hand-wrapped; Google will probably mess them up]

Jose wrote:

> I'd rather see the one-liner at the top, and then I know \
to skip the rest, than to claw my way down to the bottom \
to do so.
>
> I have no problem with an appropriate mix of top, bottom, \
and interleaved postings. Each have their merits.

IMNSHO, *appropriate* top-posting is a *very* specialised field.

Please instruct your Netscape to use shorter lines: Usenet convention is
to keep original text within 72 columns, which allows modestly nested
quoting before anything falls off the right hand side of an 80-column
device.

The relevant option in my Netscrape is:

Edit
Preferences
Mail & Groups
Messages
Wrap long lines at [72] characters

YNMV

[Robert Briggs]

[NGs trimmed as Roger and Dylan are r.a.p regulars]

Roger wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:

> > The problem with top posting is:

> > (b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what
> > they are quoting ... A large NG with many top posted threads
> > can soon add up to megabytes of untrimmed quotes that a modem
> > user must download (and possibly pay for).
>
> And bottom posting doesn't?

Bottom-posting *with snippage* doesn't, and decent snippage seems to
be quite a bit more common in association with bottom-posting.

[Jose]

> Please instruct your Netscape to use shorter lines: Usenet convention is
> to keep original text within 72 columns, which allows modestly nested
> quoting before anything falls off the right hand side of an 80-column
> device.

How many people still use 80 column devices? (serious
question).
All the newsreaders I've seen autowrap, and short lines make
a mess
of autowrap, depending on the gateways they pass through.
This is why I chose to use long lines - they autowrwap
gracefully, and cut and paste gracefully.

But if there is sufficient call for it, I'll change
to 72 chars (or less, since I've seen many widow words)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert Morien]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Robert Morien > wrote:
>
> > And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?
>
> yes.

You must post the location of this paradise you live in.

[Robert Morien]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> In article >, Robert
> Morien wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dylan Smith > wrote:
> <snip>
> >> A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of
> >> untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for).
> >
> > And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?
>
> Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective
> bits and comment right underneath the point you're replying to), by the
> very nature of the activity there is an incentive to trim the quotations
> down.


You answer with a definitive yes and then four words in say "if".

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:58:34 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article <qEQod.662427$8_6.443178@attbi_s04>, mike regish wrote:
>> That's just dumb. Can you figure out what this reply is to? Or is it too
>> difficult for you?
>
>The problem with top posting is:
>(a) see witty earlier comment where someone wrote a conversation
>bottom-to-top
>(b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
>are quoting.

Pure crap -- I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not much more
than three lines at the end.

Shove that "99.9%" back up your ass where you found it.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:44:23 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, Robert Morien wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Dylan Smith > wrote:
><snip>
>>> A large NG with many top posted threads can soon add up to megabytes of
>>> untrimmed quotes that a modem user must download (and possibly pay for).
>>
>> And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?
>
>Indeed they do. If you 'bottom post' (or more likely, quote selective
>bits and comment right underneath the point you're replying to), by the
>very nature of the activity there is an incentive to trim the quotations
>down.

Incentive doesn't mean crap. I often top post, but still trim
the irrelevant stuff. Because I'm just a nice guy.

I also delete the ten sets of addrresses on jokes forwarded to
me and re-wrap the lines before sending them to anyone else.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >,
Robert Morien wrote:
>> > And the vast majority (like 99.9%) of bottom posters DO trim...?
>>
>> yes.
>
> You must post the location of this paradise you live in.

The newsgroup that shall not be mentioned, other than it used to have an
FAQ that was exactly 666 lines long :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, wrote:
>>(b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
>>are quoting.
>
> Pure crap -- I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not much more
> than three lines at the end.
>
> Shove that "99.9%" back up your ass where you found it.

Why so hostile?

Would it really have hurt you that much to say:

"I don't think that's true - I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not
much more than three lines up the end"

instead of spouting a bunch of invective?

I really have to wonder what's happened to the concept of "netiquette".
This has been a very long September indeed.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Morgans]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

>
> I really have to wonder what's happened to the concept of "netiquette".
> This has been a very long September indeed.
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Umm, Dylan, turn the pages on your calendar. It is November, now. <g>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Peanutjake]

Anyone who is bothered by either top or bottom posting is probably anal
retentive.

PJ

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peanutjake wrote:
> Anyone who is bothered by either top or bottom posting is probably anal
> retentive.

Just like people who are bothered by saying "please" and "thank you" or
holding open a door for the next person. Netiquette is just online
manners, that's all.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Newps]

wrote:


>>>
>>>--
>>>Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.

Wife was in line with friends by 4 am this morning. Came home with four
computers at $199 each. Sweet deal.

[Jens Krueger]

Jose > wrote:

> How many people still use 80 column devices? (serious
> question).
> All the newsreaders I've seen autowrap, and short lines make
> a mess
> of autowrap, depending on the gateways they pass through.
> This is why I chose to use long lines - they autowrwap
> gracefully, and cut and paste gracefully.

See the above quoted part of your message? See the weird line breaks
(after mess for instance)? That's because your newsclient doesn't
"pre-break" at 72 characters. If you go two or three quote levels down
it just gets worse.

It's just harder to read.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

[zatatime]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:32:51 -0500, (Jens Krueger)
wrote:

>It's just harder to read.


No offense meant, but your posts are harder to read than the rest
Jose. And you've got alot to share.

z

[Jose]

>>How many people still use 80 column devices? (serious
>>> question).
>>> All the newsreaders I've seen autowrap, and short lines make
>>> a mess
>>> of autowrap, depending on the gateways they pass through.
>>> This is why I chose to use long lines - they autowrwap
>>> gracefully, and cut and paste gracefully.
>
>
> See the above quoted part of your message? See the weird line breaks
> (after mess for instance)? That's because your newsclient doesn't
> "pre-break" at 72 characters. If you go two or three quote levels down
> it just gets worse.

No, it's the other way around.

I typed my message with the line weird line breaks by hand,
to illustrate what happens when lines that have already
been broken get broken a second time, at a shorter length.
Quoted, it gets worse. But a long line gets broken only
once, and only if it passes through a line-breaking
gateway.

I'm typing this with no weird line breaks, but with hard
returns before I reach 60 characters. However, since there
has not been any strong outcry about my longer line lengths,
I'll go back to them. Seems most people here have autowrap
and prefer (or aren't bothered by) longer lines.

Again - sufficient outcry and I'll reset my client.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Richard Thomas]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:41:55 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> wrote:

>Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "John A. Weeks III" > on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0600
>spoke:
>
>>Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
>>Africa and the South Pole.
>
>Usenet is a sub-set of the internet.
>
>Without the internet, there is no usenet.

Wrong. you need to re-read your history of the internet.

Rich
--
An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf
is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed
is crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.
--R.A.Heinlein

[Bob Ward]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:10:20 GMT, Richard Thomas
> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:41:55 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> wrote:
>
>>Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "John A. Weeks III" > on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:55:13 -0600
>>spoke:
>>
>>>Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
>>>Africa and the South Pole.
>>
>>Usenet is a sub-set of the internet.
>>
>>Without the internet, there is no usenet.
>
>Wrong. you need to re-read your history of the internet.
>
>Rich

It might not have started out that way, but it's pretty much the case
today. Theere are very few Fidonet nodes actively distributing Usenet
traffic these days, I'm pretty sure.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:47:11 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>It might not have started out that way, but it's pretty much the case
>today. Theere are very few Fidonet nodes actively distributing Usenet
>traffic these days, I'm pretty sure.


They actually use different protocols. If the HTTP backbone ever goes
down, the NNTP backbone should still function without a problem. That
is unless things are so integrated today that they actually share
hardware, which I hope is not the case.

z

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:03:19 GMT, zatatime wrote:

>>It might not have started out that way, but it's pretty much the case
>>today. Theere are very few Fidonet nodes actively distributing Usenet
>>traffic these days, I'm pretty sure.
>
>
>They actually use different protocols. If the HTTP backbone ever goes
>down, the NNTP backbone should still function without a problem. That
>is unless things are so integrated today that they actually share
>hardware, which I hope is not the case.

HTTP backbone? NNTP backbone? what are you talking about?

for sure they share the same hardware: traffic is routed through the same
routers, switched throught the same switches, announced in the same route
objects, and at smaller operations a newsserver might share the hardware
with another service.

>z

#m

--
The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
Thomas Jefferson

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:10:07 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, wrote:
>>>(b) the vast majority (like 99.9%) of top posters do not trim what they
>>>are quoting.
>>
>> Pure crap -- I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not much more
>> than three lines at the end.
>>
>> Shove that "99.9%" back up your ass where you found it.
>
>Why so hostile?

Why so untruthful -- you know damned well that the 99.9% is
pure bull****.

>
>Would it really have hurt you that much to say:
>
>"I don't think that's true - I've seen plenty of 200-liners with not
>much more than three lines up the end"
>
>instead of spouting a bunch of invective?

What's it to you?

>I really have to wonder what's happened to the concept of "netiquette".

I'm sure it'll never really go away as long as we have net
nannies like you running around clucking their tongues. If you're so
offended, stay with alt.rubber-stamps.

>This has been a very long September indeed.

Buy a working calendar, jerk.

[Stereophile22]

>I really have to wonder what's happened to the concept of "netiquette".

netiquette is subjeective. Some places say it's long been proper netiquette to
always cross-post when posting the same message to two or more newsgroups, and
improper bad netiquette to post the messages separately in the newsgroups.

aWhile other places say it's long been proper netiquette to always post the
same message to one or more newsgroups individually and improper bad netiquette
to crosspost the same message to two or more newsgroups.
I could give other examples.

Ironically, all the places claim that the reason is because the other way takes
up too much bandwidth (even though their opposites). And all places give some
sort of "authority of all Usenet" as the source.

All places claim that their way has been the proper way ever since Usenet
began.

Somer places claim crossposting takes up too much bandwidth and the messages
should be posted separately since posting separateluy takes up less bandwidth
than crossposting does.

While other places claim that posting separately takes up too much bandwidth
and the messages should be crossposted since crossposting takes up less
bandwidth than posting separately does.

And all of the places give their proof as to why the other way takes up more
bandwidth than their way does.

Crossposting is just one of the subjects. As I said, I could give other
examples (of other subjects group claim that the opposite way of each other is
the proper netiquette, and that the other groups' way is the improper
netiquette (even though both claim the opposite of each other is the proper
netiquette).

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 at 04:39:48 in message
>, Stereophile22
> wrote:
>>I really have to wonder what's happened to the concept of "netiquette".
>
>netiquette is subjeective. Some places say it's long been proper netiquette to
>always cross-post when posting the same message to two or more newsgroups, and
>improper bad netiquette to post the messages separately in the newsgroups.
>
A lot of netiquette is like good manners - it depends on the user, but
it is not law. Rather what more like people nowadays call 'best
practice'..

[1] If you must post the same message to more than one group then cross
post it. Why? Well for two reasons. Firstly if you have a good news
reader like mine and you happen to take both groups you will only see it
once. Secondly because only one copy of it is floating around the
'hyperspace' until it reaches the local servers when your copy is only
downloaded if you 'subscribe' to the group,

>aWhile other places say it's long been proper netiquette to always post the
>same message to one or more newsgroups individually and improper bad netiquette
>to crosspost the same message to two or more newsgroups.
>I could give other examples.
>
I have never seen any authoritative arguments for that. You may be
confusing it with the original ideas and definitions of Spam before the
word became generic. That is the rule that individual postings count
higher for spam than cross posted ones because they use more bandwidth.

>Ironically, all the places claim that the reason is because the other way takes
>up too much bandwidth (even though their opposites). And all places give some
>sort of "authority of all Usenet" as the source.
>
No such thing as an authority of usenet as far as I know. There are a
lot of documents called RFCs which define all sorts of things about the
Internet but AFAIK they are not laws just documents discussed carefully
amongst those who know and general agreed or not as the case may be.

>All places claim that their way has been the proper way ever since Usenet
>began.
>

Have you researched the RFCs? I have not for some time and then only a
few.

>Somer places claim crossposting takes up too much bandwidth and the messages
>should be posted separately since posting separateluy takes up less bandwidth
>than crossposting does.
>
As far as I am aware that is wrong. Cross posting takes up less room.

>While other places claim that posting separately takes up too much bandwidth
>and the messages should be crossposted since crossposting takes up less
>bandwidth than posting separately does.
>
See [1] above

--
David CL Francis

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:53:16 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::

>No such thing as an authority of usenet as far as I know.

What ever happened to Gene Spaford? In the beginning, the 'backbone'
policed its news nodes and denied a feed to those that were
problematic. Today, due to the massive influx of Usenet-naive users,
and the loss of power by the backbone cabal, the system has begun to
devolve a bit.

>There are a
>lot of documents called RFCs which define all sorts of things about the
>Internet but AFAIK they are not laws just documents discussed carefully
>amongst those who know and general agreed or not as the case may be.

RFCs are Request For Comments, IIRC. RFCs contain the distilled logic
and intelligence from the better minds most familiar with the
interoperability of the system; they define the construction of the
system they create. It is a noble attempt at self-governance through
expert standardization rather than an imperial authority.

[...]

>>Somer places claim crossposting takes up too much bandwidth and the messages
>>should be posted separately since posting separateluy takes up less bandwidth
>>than crossposting does.
>>
>As far as I am aware that is wrong. Cross posting takes up less room.

Only one copy of a crossposted article is carried by the nntp servers.

Crossposting can be used creatively and productively (see: Message-ID:
>), but there is a dark
side also. Some malevolent, destructive soles crosspost to dispirit
unrelated newsgroups that would be expected to hold opposing views in
the hope of igniting a conflagration of vitriol. The resulting
acrimony spewed in the newsgroup by those who choose to participate in
it can be so intense as to insult the sensitive among a newsgroup's
readership, and cause them to seek to distance themselves from being
associated with it (Wally Roberts comes to mind).

So the choice is, once again, ours. Which would we rather have
included in the community, the constructive or the destructive?

[John Clear]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:53:16 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::
>
>>No such thing as an authority of usenet as far as I know.
>
>What ever happened to Gene Spaford? In the beginning, the 'backbone'
>policed its news nodes and denied a feed to those that were
>problematic. Today, due to the massive influx of Usenet-naive users,
>and the loss of power by the backbone cabal, the system has begun to
>devolve a bit.

Gene Spafford (aka spaf) is still around, but gave up on USENET sometime
around the start of the September that never ended[1]. I can't seem to
find his "screw you guys, I'm going home" message in Google Groups.
It might have just been in the local Purdue groups.

Emily Postnews is still recommended reading, but of course no one
bothers any more.

John
[1] In the early days of USENET, every September the influx of
college students would increase the noise level in the newsgroups.
September 1993 is referred to as the September that never ended
because AOL users got access to USENET around that time.
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[Larry Dighera]

On 8 Dec 2004 00:25:15 -0800, (John Clear) wrote in
>::

>Emily Postnews is still recommended reading, but of course no one
>bothers any more.

A large part of the reason "no one bothers any more" is a result of
the current crop of news reading client software failing to impose the
mandate that the monthly postings in news.newusers
<news://news.newusers.questions> be visited before permitting the
reading of articles in other newsgroups. IIRC, rn and trn were
distributed with such an imperative.

It's interesting how such a simple omission can assist in
precipitating devolution. As the recent message below indicates, AOL
is not part of the solution either:


The original message was received at Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:50:11
-0500 (EST) from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]

*** ATTENTION ***

Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem
with its delivery. Please direct further questions regarding this
message to your e-mail administrator.

--AOL Postmaster

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

(expanded from: >)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-xj03.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT >
<<< 552 newsmaster MAILBOX FULL
554 ... Service unavailable