O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations

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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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,

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

"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

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

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?