Copy of email to [email protected]

While you are criticising others I should like to suggest that you stick to
one identity when posting.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dave Budd" > wrote in message
k...
[...]
>
> I was giving a demonstration of how awful it is when people
> don't.

In article >,
says...
> While you are criticising others I should like to suggest that you stick to
> one identity when posting.

I wasn't criticising so much as offering helpful suggestions,
or at least so I hope.
Ok, my machine at home and my machine here are set up with
different names - they send via different servers, too. It's
not a big deal, really. No more disconcerting than top-
postingand broken sigseps, anyway (implied emoticon)
--
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT
information is ENCOURAGED.

"Andy Turner" > wrote in message
...

>
> It's interesting Dori, that we've picked out similar parts of that
> link. It's a refreshingly honest and subjective piece - most such
> documents are written by the likes of the top-post-whiners and as such
> have an agenda and simply whine in HTML form instead.
>

Andy, I think your use of the word "whiner" is touching on the inflammatory.
At what point does a request not to top-post classify someone as a whiner?
If it's after a single request, then you can put me into the whiner category
as I prefer bottom or interleaved posting and have request people not
top-post in the past. Infact with Dori I tried it in a polite way by adding
the comment [top-posting fixed] when replying to one of her posts..

I won't post the entire text, but Dori replied to a request (not from me
this time) in alt.autos.bmw on January 26, 2005 ( E39 Police Cars in
London) with the top-posted comment: "Just for you, I'll do it this way,
but don't expect me to 'bottom-post' in
general..." and then proceeded to interleave her replies. ::sigh::

A follow-up to that thread later that day had Dori post a comment about
postings in online forums and how in those situations... "...it really can
be a little incovenient to read top-posted msgs.

However, sod it..." And proceeded to top-post.

> People whining about top-posting are simply old dogs incapable or
> refusing to learn new tricks. The internet technologies, availability,
> speed, demographics have changed massively, people just have to learn
> to keep up with mutating preferences.
>

I suppose I fall into your "old dogs" demographic by virtue of being a
usenet reader/poster since the late 90s. I still argue that if asked not to
top-post, the request should be honoured, unless there are legitimate
reasons for being unable. Stubborness and lazyness would not qualify.

To summarise, I accept your view that in an un-moderated forum without a
charter -- and when cross-posted with groups that both do and don't have a
charter or policy on top-posting -- that a user should have the right to
post how they choose, but they should also accept and expect to be asked to
not top-post.

I think that's all.

Neil.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:57:32 -0800, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>"Eric Jarvis" > wrote
>> All of which is sort of true. Which is precisely why I deal with people
>> who are too idle, ignorant or self obsessed to understand why top posting
>> is a mistake, by killfiling them on sight. They can post what they like
>> and how they like, but if they aren't prepared to format their posts so
>> that they effectively use the medium in a ay that is convenient for
>> everyone else, I simply can't be bothered with their contribution. It's a
>> matter of mutual respect. If people refuse to consider other people's
>> convenience to be at least as important as their own, then I will deal
>> with them in the way that is most convenient for me. Which is killfile the
>> silly sods.
>
>So if Galileo, Descartes, Tolstoy or such began top-posting from
>beyond the grave, you'd killfile them? Seems a little short-sighted
>to me.

Exactly. People who think that the way that people lay out their text
is more important than what they have to say are quite frankly, idiots
themselves.


andyt

"Andy Turner" > wrote in message
...

> >
> >So if Galileo, Descartes, Tolstoy or such began top-posting from
> >beyond the grave, you'd killfile them? Seems a little short-sighted
> >to me.
>
> Exactly. People who think that the way that people lay out their text
> is more important than what they have to say are quite frankly, idiots
> themselves.
>
>
> andyt
>

Maybe when someone posts from beyond, an exception could be made! LMFAO at
the ridiculousness of the analogy.

Admittedly killfiling based on format over content does smack of cutting off
one's nose to spite one's face, but I'd stop short of saying it's idiotic.
Conversely a person refusing to honour a request to bottom-post or
interleave, just because they're too lazy to scroll down, thus limiting the
number of people who will read their posting as they appear on increasing
numbers of killfiles -- is also partaking in rhinoplasty. IMHO.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:47:44 +0000, JAF
> wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:32:55 GMT, Andy Turner >
>wrote:
>
>>What *idiotic* logic.
>>
>Indeed.

Well it was *your* idiotic logic, but I guess I ought to be pleased
you agree!


> So into the oubliette with you.

So I guess you'll not be making that explanation about the metaphor
then? Or explaining the disparity between the interpretations given?
I'm not surprised, I even predicted it - it's typical jaf behaviour.

In fact, since you've been unable to do either, you've taken the
rather pathetic option of snipping it and running off behind what
presumably is a killfile.

Sheeesh - and people are supposed to take you seriously when you whine
about top-posting?

Hardly likely now is it...





andyt

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:04:23 -0500, "Neil" >
wrote:

>
>"Andy Turner" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> >
>> >So if Galileo, Descartes, Tolstoy or such began top-posting from
>> >beyond the grave, you'd killfile them? Seems a little short-sighted
>> >to me.
>>
>> Exactly. People who think that the way that people lay out their text
>> is more important than what they have to say are quite frankly, idiots
>> themselves.

>Maybe when someone posts from beyond, an exception could be made! LMFAO at
>the ridiculousness of the analogy.
>
>Admittedly killfiling based on format over content does smack of cutting off
>one's nose to spite one's face, but I'd stop short of saying it's idiotic.

Perhaps, but I still find the practice bizarre. I once asked elsewhere
whether if you asked a question in a group and the only reply was
top-posted, would they ignore it. Various people claimed they would -
which I still find staggering (and to be honest, unbelievable).
However, if that one answer had come from someone who the OP had
already killfiled, then they'd never know.


>Conversely a person refusing to honour a request to bottom-post or
>interleave, just because they're too lazy to scroll down, thus limiting the
>number of people who will read their posting as they appear on increasing
>numbers of killfiles -- is also partaking in rhinoplasty. IMHO.

S'funny because I would think the sort of person that killfiles people
because of the way someone lays out their post, is not especially the
sort of person that I would be concerned if they didn't see my posts.
Kinda self-fullfilling if you like.


andyt

"Andy Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >Conversely a person refusing to honour a request to bottom-post or
> >interleave, just because they're too lazy to scroll down, thus limiting
the
> >number of people who will read their posting as they appear on increasing
> >numbers of killfiles -- is also partaking in rhinoplasty. IMHO.
>
> S'funny because I would think the sort of person that killfiles people
> because of the way someone lays out their post, is not especially the
> sort of person that I would be concerned if they didn't see my posts.
> Kinda self-fullfilling if you like.
>
>
> andyt

You're probably correct in some situations. Still, if the one person that
holds the answer didn't see the question because the poster was on their
killfile, then the poster is SOL as they say.

The fact is that people may killfile for a lot of reasons, but they don't do
it solely because of someone bottom-posting. Unless there's a group called
alt.fan.top-posting of which I'm not aware. ;-)

"Neil" > wrote
> "Andy Turner" > wrote
>> >So if Galileo, Descartes, Tolstoy or such began top-posting from
>> >beyond the grave, you'd killfile them? Seems a little short-sighted
>> >to me.
>
> Maybe when someone posts from beyond, an exception could be made! LMFAO
> at
> the ridiculousness of the analogy.

Well, for you UK guys, how about Blair suddenly top-posting to uk.misc?
Of course, many of you might ignore him, anywhere, but work with me here!

Floyd

In message >, fbloogyudsr
> writes
>"Neil" > wrote
>> "Andy Turner" > wrote
>>> >So if Galileo, Descartes, Tolstoy or such began top-posting from
>>> >beyond the grave, you'd killfile them? Seems a little short-sighted
>>> >to me.
>>
>> Maybe when someone posts from beyond, an exception could be made!
>>LMFAO at
>> the ridiculousness of the analogy.
>
>Well, for you UK guys, how about Blair suddenly top-posting to uk.misc?
>Of course, many of you might ignore him, anywhere, but work with me here!


Putting Blair beyond the grave as the price to pay for a top-post from
him to u.m. . . . that's a ****ing BARGAIN in anyone's money!

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk