If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:55:35 -0500, Neil >
wrote the following to uk.misc: > For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent > explanation of the history of top-posting and bottom-posting he > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting And a few words to describe Andy Turner he http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WikiSaurus:fool He does tend to pop up when there's a row going on. He doesn't add anything; he just likes moaning. mh. -- Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole. "If you don't vote, you get morons in charge." - Maurice Chavez (GTA Vice City) |
Ads |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
This is such a silly discussion I can't resist joining in (again).
Nice extract from that Wikipedia link (edited):- Objections to top-posting, as a general rule, seem to come from persons who first went online in the earlier days of Usenet, and in communities that date to Usenet's early days, [...] . Etiquette is looser (as is almost everything) in the alt hierarchy. Newer online participants, especially those with limited experience of Usenet, tend as a general rule, to be less sensitive to top-posting, and tend to reject any argument against top-posting as irrelevant. A typical contrarian view holds that their software top-posts and they like it. It may be that users used to older, terminal-oriented software which was unable to easily show references to posts being replied to, learned to prefer the summary that not top-posting gives; it's also likely that the general slower propagation times of the original Usenet groups made that summary a useful reminder of older posts. As news and mail readers have become more capable, and as propagation times have grown shorter, newer users may find top-posting more efficient." As it is I manually delete the two hyphens that delineate the signature because it has some advserse effect, I understand for Mozilla users. My newsreader automatically inserts the hyphens. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Neil" > wrote in message ... [...] > For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent > explanation of the history of top-posting and bottom-posting he > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting > > > |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Turner wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:26:30 GMT, Mary Pegg > > wrote: > >>Andy Turner wrote: >> >>> Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is), >>> between groups, which group's standards should apply? >> >>All that are applicable. If it is not possible to post in a mutually >>acceptable manner, then one should not post at all. > > LOL! > > So when replying to this thread, did you check the FAQs of all groups > it's posted to? And your point is? -- Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
In message >, Dori A
Schmetterling > writes >As it is I manually delete the two hyphens that delineate the signature >because it has some advserse effect, I understand for Mozilla users. My >newsreader automatically inserts the hyphens. If I understand this correctly, you're top posting, then deleting the sig sep because it performs it's intended function and hides everything following it for those who don't want to read sigs, because in your top posting case this includes everything you're quoting. Astonishing. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Pegg" > wrote
> Andy Turner wrote: >> Self-centredness is having your head so much up your own arse that you >> believe that the preferences of you and others are the only >> preferences that must be allowed and that they must be forced on those >> who have different preferences. > > Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. > > Least of all post to, or read, uk.misc. However those that choose to > post to uk.misc are requested to abide by the norms of the group. The problem is that *you* and the other regular posters to auk.misc don't own the "group". Nor do the posters to alt.autos.bmw own it. Nor does the US own the internet, etc. (If you want moderated discussion, join a moderated group.) You have to take the bad (trolls and top/bottom posting, poor clipping) with the good (which is *really* good): free speech and discussion. Floyd |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Turner" > wrote
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:39:33 GMT, Mary Pegg wrote: >>Least of all post to, or read, uk.misc. However those that choose to >>post to uk.misc are requested to abide by the norms of the group. > > Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is), > between groups, which group's standards should apply? Well, that's a good question, and is complicated by the fact that the OP x-posted ALT groups with REC and other groups that have wildly different original charters, and probably FAQs. Floyd |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Dori A
Schmetterling said: > As it is I manually delete the two hyphens that delineate the signature > because it has some advserse effect, I understand for Mozilla users. My > newsreader automatically inserts the hyphens. I hadn't heard that, but hey. It's hyphen hyphen space return, to be strict. If you leave out the space, standards-conformant newsreaders won't recognise it as a sigsep -- tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
fbloogyudsr wrote:
> The problem is that *you* and the other regular posters to auk.misc > don't own the "group". Nor do the posters to alt.autos.bmw own it. > Nor does the US own the internet, etc. (If you want moderated > discussion, join a moderated group.) NS,S. > You have to take the bad (trolls and top/bottom posting, poor clipping) Err, no we don't. -- Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:33:21 +0000 (UTC), Andy Turner
> wrote: >>once I did present my *subsequent* point based on *your* answer, you >>did get rather confused and believe it was some sort of strawman. I'd >>like to think you >> >Ack, I clearly hadn't finished writing that bit.. I'll try again: > >>>I have no way of knowing what your fevered mind is "moving towards" >>>before you have articulated (and I use the term loosely) it. > >Nope, and no-one expected you to. However, you only got confused about >it *after* I'd presented it (you quoted it after all..), not "before". >However, once I did present my *subsequent* point based on *your* >answer, you did get rather confused and believe it was some sort of >strawman WRT the original question. Since metaphor is too subtle for you, I have concluded that the best course of action in this case is for you to bypass it and to literally plunge your head into a bucketful of **** and see if you gag. Please report back with your findings. This is *very important* to you, isn't it? I think you should have the last word, you'll probably burst a nut if you don't. Sad. -- Dean Dark |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
> This is *very important* to you, isn't it? I think you should have > the last word, you'll probably burst a nut if you don't. Sad. Nice One, Dean! (f/u set) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WANT TO BUT A SPYDER......? | Bagger | Chrysler | 0 | January 13th 05 06:22 PM |