I say - bring back the 1970's

cavedweller wrote:

> > If you're going to top-post and NOT in-line quote, then there is
> > no purpose for you to drag / quote the entire previous post that
> > you're replying to into your post. It's just a waste of resources
> > to do that.
>
> Which resources?

If nothing else - my visual sensibilities.

QED. A rant.

My post is at the top and everything else is below it. No ned to scroll
through anything if you don't want to.

Try using a 'proper' newsreader....

;-)
DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> DAS wrote:
>
>> Quite!
>
> Quite what? Sorry, I don't know what you're saying "Quite" to.
>
>> But your die-hard old timers won't buy that.
>
> What won't we buy?
>
> Sorry, I'm not following you.
>
>> You can also see that they think I am a "full quoter"
>
> Which you are.
>
>> whereas I am just not cutting off the thread so one can see the
>> context.
>
> Ah, that old gag. What a bull**** reason that is to drag the entire
> previous post into your reply.
>
> If anyone wants to see the context, then they have the entire thread at
> their disposal, and they will know exactly which post you're replying
> to. There is no reason to be a "full-quoter" for exactly that reason.
> These are not private e-mail conversations we're having here on usenet.
> That style of top-posting and full bottom-quoting is not useful for
> usenet.
>
>> Far worse are those who intersperse a few words of 'wisdom' in a
>> long post here and there, so one has to scroll down a lot to see
>> what they are saying.
>
>> And those who reply at the bottom of long posts (without trimming
>> them) with some inanity like "LoL" or "I agree"...
>
> Both of those styles are (again) the result of extreme lazyness on the
> part of the author who does not do the reader the courtesy to remove all
> but what he is replying to.
>
> Bottom posting while full-quoting still makes one a "full-quoter", which
> as I've already stated is also poor usenet message composition style.

On Jun 5, 9:11*am, MoPar Man > wrote:
> cavedweller wrote:
> > > If you're going to top-post and NOT in-line quote, then there is
> > > no purpose for you to drag / quote the entire previous post that
> > > you're replying to into your post. *It's just a waste of resources
> > > to do that.
>
> > Which resources?
>
> If nothing else - my visual sensibilities.

Figures.

DAS wrote:

> QED. A rant.

No. Just restating established correct usenet message composition and
posting style, with explanations.

> My post is at the top and everything else is below it.

Which doesn't tell me what arguments or statements you're responding to.

> No need to scroll through anything if you don't want to.

Only if I want to know what your responding to. And even then, when you
quote the entire post, you can't be specific about what elements you're
responsing to.

> Try using a 'proper' newsreader....
> ;-)

Ha. That's a laugh (which you acknowledged).

IE is not a proper usenet reader (but I suppose that's what you meant
with your smiley).

If you and Ashton Crusher want to enlighten yourselves, I suggest you
read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

On 6/5/2011 8:11 AM, MoPar Man wrote:
> cavedweller wrote:
>
>>> If you're going to top-post and NOT in-line quote, then there is
>>> no purpose for you to drag / quote the entire previous post that
>>> you're replying to into your post. It's just a waste of resources
>>> to do that.
>>
>> Which resources?
>
> If nothing else - my visual sensibilities.

Jeez..that is tough!, your Highness. ;-p


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

Yes, MoPar Man

"For a long time the traditional style was to post the answer below as much
of the quoted original as was necessary to understand the reply (bottom or
inline). Many years later, when email became widespread in business
communication, it became a widespread policy to reply above the entire
original and leave it untouched below the reply."

My point exactly. I find bottom-posting irritating, but I won't get annoyed
about it.

Chacun a son gout (without the accents as I am too lazy to insert them, but
as a Canadian you are bi-lingual -- hohoho -- and should have no trouble
reading this phrase).

DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> DAS wrote:
>
>> QED. A rant.
>
> No. Just restating established correct usenet message composition and
> posting style, with explanations.
>
>> My post is at the top and everything else is below it.
>
> Which doesn't tell me what arguments or statements you're responding to.
>
>> No need to scroll through anything if you don't want to.
>
> Only if I want to know what your responding to. And even then, when you
> quote the entire post, you can't be specific about what elements you're
> responsing to.
>
>> Try using a 'proper' newsreader....
>> ;-)
>
> Ha. That's a laugh (which you acknowledged).
>
> IE is not a proper usenet reader (but I suppose that's what you meant
> with your smiley).
>
> If you and Ashton Crusher want to enlighten yourselves, I suggest you
> read this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

DAS wrote:

> Yes, MoPar Man

?

Yes what?

> "For a long time the traditional style was to post the answer
> below as much of the quoted original as was necessary to
> understand the reply (bottom or inline). Many years later,
> when email became widespread in business communication, it
> became a widespread policy to reply above the entire original
> and leave it untouched below the reply."

> My point exactly.

No. My point exactly.

What you're missing is that what we're having here is not an e-mail
discussion. This is a threaded usenet discussion.

And what's more, the above paragraph leaves out one important fact:

> "Many years later, when email became widespread in business
> communication, it became a widespread policy to reply above
> the entire original and leave it untouched below the reply."

That should read as follows:

"Between 1995 and 2000 when e-mail first became widespread in business
communication (Five to ten years after usenet's initial wave of
popularity and established posting composition style), it became common
to reply above the entire fully-quoted message due to that being the
default behavior of e-mail clients (Outlook and Outlook Express)
introduced by Microsoft for use on the vast majority of desktop
computers during that time frame."

In other words, top-poasting and full-quoting (at least as it applied to
e-mail) became the "norm" because that was the default behavior of
arguably the first defacto e-mail clients used by people that were new
to electronic communications.

> I find bottom-posting irritating, but I won't get annoyed about
> it.

You haven't said anything about in-line posting, as I am doing right
now.

You haven't said anything about how satisfactory you find my ability to
reply to every small comment or point that you make, and for you to know
the exact context of what I write because I am quoting you while
replying in-line.

Do you not understand the difference between sharply-edited in-line
posting, and full-quoting bottom-posting?

> Chacun a son gout (but as a Canadian you are bi-lingual
> -- hohoho -- and should have no trouble reading this phrase).

I suspect that "hoho" means you know full well that English/french
bilingualism is a myth in Canada (and that the appearance of both
languages on many documents and signs is for political appeasement and
not for practicality).

Thanks to google translate - yes, everyone has their own taste. But
good taste is universal.

(I will now delete the remainder of your full-quote, which it's presence
at the bottom of your post accomplished nothing and was just excess
baggage)

On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, MoPar Man > wrote:

>
> (I will now delete the remainder of your full-quote, which it's presence
> at the bottom of your post accomplished nothing and was just excess
> baggage)

C'est "its"

Should posts be "formatted" for the 90% of people who have been
following them from the beginning or for the 10% who just pop in and
out of the discussion? Top posting is clearly superior for the 90%
who have ALREADY read all the prior material and don't need to wade
thru it again. I choose to use the format that best suits the serious
readers of a thread rather then the format that best suits the casual
reader who most likely won't even reply OR will Quote the ENTIRE post
with a one word addition at the very bottom that adds little or
nothing to the discussion - but that will make you and your ilk all
warm and fuzzy because the useless additional material is bottom
posted.



On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:59:29 -0400, MoPar Man > wrote:

>DAS wrote:
>
>> Yes, MoPar Man
>
>?
>
>Yes what?
>
>> "For a long time the traditional style was to post the answer
>> below as much of the quoted original as was necessary to
>> understand the reply (bottom or inline). Many years later,
>> when email became widespread in business communication, it
>> became a widespread policy to reply above the entire original
>> and leave it untouched below the reply."
>
>> My point exactly.
>
>No. My point exactly.
>
>What you're missing is that what we're having here is not an e-mail
>discussion. This is a threaded usenet discussion.
>
>And what's more, the above paragraph leaves out one important fact:
>
>> "Many years later, when email became widespread in business
>> communication, it became a widespread policy to reply above
>> the entire original and leave it untouched below the reply."
>
>That should read as follows:
>
>"Between 1995 and 2000 when e-mail first became widespread in business
>communication (Five to ten years after usenet's initial wave of
>popularity and established posting composition style), it became common
>to reply above the entire fully-quoted message due to that being the
>default behavior of e-mail clients (Outlook and Outlook Express)
>introduced by Microsoft for use on the vast majority of desktop
>computers during that time frame."
>
>In other words, top-poasting and full-quoting (at least as it applied to
>e-mail) became the "norm" because that was the default behavior of
>arguably the first defacto e-mail clients used by people that were new
>to electronic communications.
>
>> I find bottom-posting irritating, but I won't get annoyed about
>> it.
>
>You haven't said anything about in-line posting, as I am doing right
>now.
>
>You haven't said anything about how satisfactory you find my ability to
>reply to every small comment or point that you make, and for you to know
>the exact context of what I write because I am quoting you while
>replying in-line.
>
>Do you not understand the difference between sharply-edited in-line
>posting, and full-quoting bottom-posting?
>
>> Chacun a son gout (but as a Canadian you are bi-lingual
>> -- hohoho -- and should have no trouble reading this phrase).
>
>I suspect that "hoho" means you know full well that English/french
>bilingualism is a myth in Canada (and that the appearance of both
>languages on many documents and signs is for political appeasement and
>not for practicality).
>
>Thanks to google translate - yes, everyone has their own taste. But
>good taste is universal.
>
>(I will now delete the remainder of your full-quote, which it's presence
>at the bottom of your post accomplished nothing and was just excess
>baggage)

Really? you think so?