The Right to Drive

J. Hollenbeck wrote:

[m.t.r removed]

> I agree with you to a point

Agree with whom?

The original poster, proffsl.
why?
"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
news:Fw2Uf.5059$I7.3942@trnddc03...
> J. Hollenbeck wrote:
>
> [m.t.r removed]
>
>> I agree with you to a point
>
> Agree with whom?

J. Hollenbeck wrote:

>>>I agree with you to a point

Arif Khokar wrote:
>>Agree with whom?

> The original poster, proffsl.
> why?

Because there was no reference in the post that made it obvious to what
you were referring to. That's why I asked.

Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
standard usenet newsgroups convention).

Arif Khokar wrote:
> J. Hollenbeck wrote:
>
> >>>I agree with you to a point
>
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> >>Agree with whom?
>
>> The original poster, proffsl.
>> why?
>
>
> Because there was no reference in the post that made it obvious to what
> you were referring to. That's why I asked.
>
> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
> standard usenet newsgroups convention).


For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost. But a
person's posting style is their own business; we don't need more
self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or
anything else.

John Graeme wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > J. Hollenbeck wrote:
> >
> > >>>I agree with you to a point
> >
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > >>Agree with whom?
> >
> >> The original poster, proffsl.
> >> why?
> >
> >
> > Because there was no reference in the post that made it obvious to what
> > you were referring to. That's why I asked.
> >
> > Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
> > standard usenet newsgroups convention).
>
>
> For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost. But a
> person's posting style is their own business; we don't need more
> self-appointed net cops dictating it, correcting spelling/grammar, or
> anything else.
-----
He's not trying to police Usenet. He merely pointed out that bottom
posting is traditional or customary... or conventional... and sensible.
It places the material relevant to the reply first, where the reader
might quickly skim it first, to note the relevance of the reply.

Do you like to read the answer first... then scroll down to the
question? Do you read books first... then discover the titles or read
the preface?

"It is recommended that you reply below the topics. Just as with
questions from readers in a magazine, the journalists respond below the
question to follow the natural reading order."

"In this way people won't have to read down and later on go back to the
top of the message. Remember that most people on Usenet read many
messages every day. And the responses mostly appear much later, so they
cannot always remember the exact message. It is also much easier for
the next person who wants to respond to your answer."

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
-----

- gpsman

John Graeme wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
>> standard usenet newsgroups convention).

> For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost.

No, it is not. If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent
points you're responding to. Notice how I deleted the quoted text that
I wasn't responding to? See how much shorter this post is as compared
to the one you made based on line count?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:00:21 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>John Graeme wrote:
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>>> Also, please post your reply below the text you're responding to (that's
>>> standard usenet newsgroups convention).
>
>> For very long posts, it's common and often better to toppost.
>
>No, it is not. If the post is very long, trim it down to the pertinent
>points you're responding to. Notice how I deleted the quoted text that
>I wasn't responding to? See how much shorter this post is as compared
>to the one you made based on line count?

Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about, was
only 21 lines, and entirely original material.

It was obvious what he was responding to -- the central claim of
proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an
unacceptable infringement on liberty.

Having done occasional net-kopping myself, I will not make a generic
denunciation of the practice. But you are completely off base here.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

> Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about, was
> only 21 lines, and entirely original material.
>
> It was obvious what he was responding to

No, it wasn't. I have proffsl killfiled, so I had no original text to
refer to.

"Hugo S. Cunningham" > wrote
> It was obvious what he was responding to -- the central claim of
> proffsl's original post, that getting drunk drivers off the road is an
> unacceptable infringement on liberty.

No, he (and I agree) that this is not. For one thing, many of us have
proffsl blocked, and never saw the OP. For another, this is heavily
x-posted, and editing the NG list/follow-ups can easily prevent people
on other NG's from seeing the OP.

FloydR (from rec.autos.driving, with idiot proffsl blocked.)

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Graeme's original post, that you started complaining about,
> > was only 21 lines, and entirely original material.
> >
> > It was obvious what he was responding to
>
> No, it wasn't. I have proffsl killfiled, so I had no original text to
> refer to.

Hahahahahahaha!!! It's obvious to those with eyes. We can't help it,
or be expected to know, if someone chooses to wear blinders.