Our Worst Nightmare?

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

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:

[a lot of text deleted]

All the links work for me.

Now as the next step you should learn to delete unneeded quotes.

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

Bottom posting sux.

mike

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm- So what is wrong with top posting???


you really don't know?

--
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

Bob Noel wrote:
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.

True, but then there are those who delete everything, and then post a reply.
So, anyone who has a newsreader that "hides" previously read posts is left
wondering what in the hades the post is referring to.

I hate having to scroll to the bottom to get to the answer. And I have NEVER
(let me repeat that for you lesser beings) NEVER had a problem knowing what
the post was a response to.

mike

"John T" wrote in message
m...

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.

Twit.

mike

P.S. Could you figure out what the response was to, or does your head get
all hurty having to read the whole bottom part before you read the top.


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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

Matt

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
nk.net...
True, but then there are those who delete everything, and then post a
reply.
So, anyone who has a newsreader that "hides" previously read posts is left
wondering what in the hades the post is referring to.

And for that matter, even those using newsreader settings that preserve the
previous message may still be in the dark as to what the post is referring
to. Between people replying to the wrong post and people replying to a post
that has several points without clarifying which point they are responding
to, lack of quotes can cause a great deal of difficulty understanding a post
for lots of people, whether they have the previous message in view or not.

Pete

"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.