O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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
news
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

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. :-)

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

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.