Our Worst Nightmare?

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

My main complaint with either type of posting is where somebody is too lazy
to
trim his quotation.

As much as I despise top-posting, I agree that failure to trim is worse.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Loads of bandwidth wasted with text. (sheesh) If you can't surmise a post at
a glance, you're too dumb to be posting to begin with.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
PPSEL-student wrote:
So what is wrong with top posting???

Do you read a book from the bottom of the page to the top? We tend to
read in chronological order and it is nice to post in that order as well.
If you are going to top post and assume that folks don't need to read what
has been written previously, then just snip the entire quote and save the
bandwidth.


Matt

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
Loads of bandwidth wasted with text. (sheesh) If you can't surmise a post
at a glance, you're too dumb to be posting to begin with.

I suppose the same could be said of someone who can't be bothered to delete
text that was quoted for no good reason. Especially if your argument hinges
on wasted bandwidth (which frankly, is not really the issue here).

See your previous post for an example of what I mean.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

mike regish wrote:
Loads of bandwidth wasted with text. (sheesh) If you can't surmise a post at
a glance, you're too dumb to be posting to begin with.

mike

Yet if you top post, you're too stupid to realize that you've
violated RFC 1855[1], which is a Netiquette guideline that states the
following:

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response.

It also goes on to say the following about not editing out
irrelevant text:

When replying to a message, include enough original material to be
understood but no more. It is extremely bad form to simply reply to a
message by including all the previous message: edit out all the
irrelevant material.


Pot. Kettle. Black. Check yourself and RTFM, Mike.

BL.

[1]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFFnaDzyBkZmuMZ8L8RAngvAJ9O7tm6yPTOHGULPJDSFP zC+XFWbQCY/kM8
Hw1i9lC9L8nBzioCGCawQA==
=uKsz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

PPSEL-student wrote:

So what is wrong with top posting???

http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost

Top-posting became a larger problem when Outlook Express (as you used to
post this) was released. It does not have an option to bottom-post
automatically and USENET newbies didn't know any better.

I recommend installing OE-QuoteFix to resolve this discrepancy:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

John T wrote:
PPSEL-student wrote:

So what is wrong with top posting???

http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost

Top-posting became a larger problem when Outlook Express (as you used
to post this) was released. It does not have an option to bottom-post
automatically and USENET newbies didn't know any better.

I recommend installing OE-QuoteFix to resolve this discrepancy:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


Well. That's kinda cool. This is my first message using Quote-Fix.

(John T wrote)
Top-posting became a larger problem when Outlook Express (as you used
to post this) was released. It does not have an option to bottom-post
automatically and USENET newbies didn't know any better.

I recommend installing OE-QuoteFix to resolve this discrepancy:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


VERY COOL!

I just installed it.

Only issue: Posted links don't show up blue anymore - they do in the quoted
material, but not when I'm seeing a post for the first time. They're still
underlined and they still work ...I just miss the pretty blue links, that's
all.


Montblack

Montblack wrote:
(John T wrote)
Top-posting became a larger problem when Outlook Express (as you used
to post this) was released. It does not have an option to bottom-post
automatically and USENET newbies didn't know any better.

I recommend installing OE-QuoteFix to resolve this discrepancy:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


VERY COOL!

I just installed it.

Only issue: Posted links don't show up blue anymore - they do in the
quoted material, but not when I'm seeing a post for the first time.
They're still underlined and they still work ...I just miss the
pretty blue links, that's all.


Same here. I have to admit I hated the way OE formatted Usenet replies.
Now, if this thing really works, and combined with yProxy from Brawny Lads,
www.brawnylads.com, for viewing yEncoded binaries, OE is usable.

Why in the world the great MS cannot incorporate these two technologies is
beyond me. It is as if MS goes out of their way to irritate people. I bet
they also top-post.

"Montblack" wrote in message


Only issue: Posted links don't show up blue anymore...

Dunno what's different, but links do appear blue and underlined for me.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

John T wrote:

PPSEL-student wrote:

So what is wrong with top posting???


http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost

Top-posting became a larger problem when Outlook Express (as you used to
post this) was released. It does not have an option to bottom-post
automatically and USENET newbies didn't know any better.

You do raise a good point about top posting. It does provide a quick
way to know who the newbies are! :-)

Matt