O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations

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?

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?

[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.

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?

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.