O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations

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.

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

Morgans wrote:

Caution: This is a download from a source I am not familiar with.

Caution:
This is a download, for a site I am not familiar with. Download at you own
risk; I know what I will do.

OK, let me say that there is not a built in fix for top posting defaults in
OE

The download is safe and its history is documented on the website, I
used it until I switched to Mozilla...

Back a few wars ago, a F-86 Sabre turns off the active and comes
nose to nose with a C-124 Globemaster on the taxiway.

F-86 jockey radios tower and asks "What is the C-124's intentions?"

The Globemaster pilot starts the clamshell nose doors opening,
then keys the mike and says "I'm going to eat you."

Craig Lewis wrote:
Here are some conversations that airline passengers normally
will never hear. The following are accounts of actual exchanges
between airline pilots and control towers around the world.

Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"

Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We ... have digital watches!"
================================================== ==========

"TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."

"Center, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?"

"Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
================================================== ==========
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify
yourself immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was bored, not stupid!"
================================================== ==========
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic
is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've
got the little Fokker in sight."
================================================== ==========
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While
attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What
was your last known position?"

Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
================================================== ==========
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly
long roll out after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right
turn at the end of the runway, if you are able. If
you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101,
make a right at the lights and return to the airport."
================================================== ==========

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running
"a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that
he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine
approach."
================================================== ==========

Taxiing down the tarmac, a DC-10 abruptly stopped, turned around
and returned to the gate. After an hour-long wait, it finally took
off. A concerned passenger asked the flight attendant, "What, exactly,
was the problem?"

"The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine,"
explained the flight attendant. "It took us a while to find a new
pilot."
================================================== ==========

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich
overheard the following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance
time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in
English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane,
in Germany. Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war."
================================================== ==========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure
on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the
way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the
far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702,
contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report
from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers."

================================================== ========

One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to
hold short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8
landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the
Cherokee. Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on
the radio and said, "What a cute little plane. Did you
make it all by yourself?"

The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came
back with a real zinger: "I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another
landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
================================================== ==========

While taxiing at London's Gatwick Airport, the crew of a US
Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and
came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground
controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771,
where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there.
I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and
D, but get it right!" Continuing her rage to the embarrassed
crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed
everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay
right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want
you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded. Naturally, the ground
control communications frequency fell terribly silent after the
verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in
every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high.
Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his
microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"

Me too. I top post to people who don't like it.

Mark wrote:

Good. Add me to your list. That way you won't have to read anything that
makes sense and flows properly.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:43:06 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:30:47 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


I just killfile them.

I killfile top-posters, too.

"SYBIL-IZED" wrote in message ...
We will let the Mythbusters settle that matter shall we...LOL

No need, there's been a Snopes entry on it for years

http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/squawk.asp


--
Jennifer

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 at 06:47:01 in message
, ShawnD2112
wrote:

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?

Top posting is common in business emails where people like to keep the
whole exchange together. I understand that usage but I feel that in many
cases bottom posting would still make more sense.

But for usenet the discussions or exchanges are more like conversation
and it is logical to put comments after statements and answers after
questions. To me this is natural; I find it difficult to understand why
some people don't agree! :-)

However 'evil' is much too strong; I would prefer 'tiresome'. Of course
this being usenet some people persist in top posting just because other
people don't like it. Others do it on 'principle' because they don't
want to be 'dictated to' or criticised. But no one can force you to do
it, or not do it on usenet.

Repeating lengthy messages just to write a couple of lines at the top is
perhaps even more 'tiresome'. And continuing to do that for reply after
reply so that the quotes get deeper and deeper is even worse.

I try to quote only as much as I need to make it clear what I am
commenting on, and to [snip] the rest indicating where cuts have been
made so that previous messages in the thread can be investigated. I have
not done that here as I consider it unnecessary.

YMMV on any or all of the above.

Cross posting removed.
--
David CL Francis

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote

I killfile top-posters, too.

It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
trying to say.

I was not really saying that I kilfile top posters. I was using another
post to illustrate how illogical top posting is, but I usually struggle
through, unless the content makes it "unworthwhile".
--
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: 11/15/2004

Illogical? Nope, not really. What's illogical is how upset people get over
it. BTW, all but one of the responders to my post top-posted their replies,
and apparently nobody (including myself, of course) seem to have had any
problems understanding.

You want to bottom-post, go ahead. I want to top-post, I will. If this is
the biggest problem people have in their life, they are VERY lucky people!

M

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote

I killfile top-posters, too.

It's easier than trying to piece together whatever it was they were
trying to say.

I was not really saying that I kilfile top posters. I was using another
post to illustrate how illogical top posting is, but I usually struggle
through, unless the content makes it "unworthwhile".
--
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: 11/15/2004

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.