Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:26:58 -0800, "Bill Sharpe"
wrote:

As I said in another thread, top vs. bottom posting is not something to get
very excited about. I can read what I want either way. It's usually easier
to follow a thread with top posts, IMHO. I know what the previous poster
said and I'm looking for the response, which is a bit easier and faster to
see if it's on top. Snipping the previous post, as I've done here, makes it
immaterial whether the reply is at the top or the bottom.
I just can't see how this top post makes "things unintelligible or difficult
for others."

Bill

Are you saying that you could follow 5-10 news groups per day, some
with several hundred posts, respond to maybe 50 of them, and remember
the continuity of every one if responses are top-posted - and that you
never have to scroll down to look at the prior post to follow the
thread?

That's in addition to working with stamps, coins, guns, playing golf,
fishing, genealogy, travel, woking out at the gym, ham radio, enjoying
the kids and grandkids, Scouts and paying bills - and growing older.
And I was told recently that some folks still have to work.

For those who are capable of following more than one thread at a time,
it's much simpler to read an edited previous post before composing a
reply in my opinion. In such a case one is already at the bottom ready
for posting. Obviously it becomes more of a problem if the prior
poster doesn't know how to edit.

I find it amusing that this topic occupies more band width on this
news group than discussion about stamps. What's wrong with that
picture? No need to remind me that I am contributing more to the
problem than the solution.

Hugh

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:26:58 -0800, "Bill Sharpe"
wrote:

As I said in another thread, top vs. bottom posting is not something to
get
very excited about. I can read what I want either way. It's usually
easier
to follow a thread with top posts, IMHO. I know what the previous poster
said and I'm looking for the response, which is a bit easier and faster
to
see if it's on top. Snipping the previous post, as I've done here, makes
it
immaterial whether the reply is at the top or the bottom.
I just can't see how this top post makes "things unintelligible or
difficult
for others."

Bill

Are you saying that you could follow 5-10 news groups per day, some
with several hundred posts, respond to maybe 50 of them, and remember
the continuity of every one if responses are top-posted - and that you
never have to scroll down to look at the prior post to follow the
thread?

Are you saying that you welcome a thousand posts a day,a ll 5-10 screens
long, with only the minimal "Sure" or "I agree" at the bottom

yes, it's a nonsense question. But so was yours. :-)

I recommend you top/bottom post as you please and allow others the same
privilege. You can always ignore anyone who doesn't comply with your
personal set of rules you know.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that you could follow 5-10 news groups per day, some
with several hundred posts, respond to maybe 50 of them, and remember
the continuity of every one if responses are top-posted - and that you
never have to scroll down to look at the prior post to follow the
thread?

Are you saying that you welcome a thousand posts a day,a ll 5-10 screens
long, with only the minimal "Sure" or "I agree" at the bottom

"Sure" or "I agree" as the only reply is as superfluous as mammary
glands on a boar hog. It takes less than minimum intelligence.

yes, it's a nonsense question. But so was yours. :-)

In view of my continued request that people edit to eliminate the
problem you mentioned, your qestion is not pertinent.

I recommend you top/bottom post as you please and allow others the same
privilege. You can always ignore anyone who doesn't comply with your
personal set of rules you know.

People who violate long standing precedent and netiquette will be
embarrassed if they ever post on sophisticated news groups.

I'll take your advice and quit trying to educate them.

Hugh

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that you could follow 5-10 news groups per day, some
with several hundred posts, respond to maybe 50 of them, and remember
the continuity of every one if responses are top-posted - and that you
never have to scroll down to look at the prior post to follow the
thread?

Are you saying that you welcome a thousand posts a day,a ll 5-10 screens
long, with only the minimal "Sure" or "I agree" at the bottom

"Sure" or "I agree" as the only reply is as superfluous as mammary
glands on a boar hog. It takes less than minimum intelligence.

Er, that was my point. You offered an analogy/example of why people
shouldn't do what you don't wnat them to do. I offered a similar example of
why people shouldn't do what I don't want them to do. That it's obviously a
stupid example was my point. The whooshing sound is of it going right over
your head.

yes, it's a nonsense question. But so was yours. :-)

In view of my continued request that people edit to eliminate the
problem you mentioned, your qestion is not pertinent.

Of course it is because people don't do it. Also my point.

I recommend you top/bottom post as you please and allow others the same
privilege. You can always ignore anyone who doesn't comply with your
personal set of rules you know.

People who violate long standing precedent and netiquette will be
embarrassed if they ever post on sophisticated news groups.

Yea, yeah, whatever. People who try to appeal to authority that doens't
exist, tradition that has never been proven to be as significant or popular
as they claim, and do not move with the times but stay stuck in archaic
'laws' based on long dead technology are equally embarrasing.

I'll take your advice and quit trying to educate them.

You do that. It'll make for a quieter place.

Ya'll have a nice day. :-)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:50:39 GMT, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Er, that was my point. You offered an analogy/example of why people
shouldn't do what you don't wnat them to do. I offered a similar example of
why people shouldn't do what I don't want them to do. That it's obviously a
stupid example was my point. The whooshing sound is of it going right over
your head.

I have not said what I WANT or DON"T WANT people to do - you assumed
that to justify your point of view. Perhaps you should wait until you
are in middle shcool to respond - or get help with reading.

In view of my continued request that people edit to eliminate the
problem you mentioned, your qestion is not pertinent.

Of course it is because people don't do it. Also my point.

You could at least try to help them overcome their lack of
consideration and ignorance vice accepting it.

I recommend you top/bottom post as you please and allow others the same
privilege. You can always ignore anyone who doesn't comply with your
personal set of rules you know.

People who violate long standing precedent and netiquette will be
embarrassed if they ever post on sophisticated news groups.

Yea, yeah, whatever. People who try to appeal to authority that doens't
exist, tradition that has never been proven to be as significant or popular
as they claim, and do not move with the times but stay stuck in archaic
'laws' based on long dead technology are equally embarrasing.

Little feller, I did not appeal to any authority (see my previous
about school). And your ignorance of netiquette is very naive. "Thou
shalt not kill" is an archaic law based on ancient technology (club,
bow and arrow, etc.) - does that rule embarrass you because killing
methods have improved? Long dead technology often is for people who
never could comprehend the old and their only haven is something new.
You pass the quack test.

I'll take your advice and quit trying to educate them.

You do that. It'll make for a quieter place.

You didn't have to respond... but I give you permission to have the
last word in this thread should you choose.

Ya'll have a nice day. :-)

I can't remember when I didn't have a nice day - it's been decades.

Hugh

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Perhaps you should wait until you
are in middle shcool to respond - or get help with reading.

Oh, no! The patronizing debunk of my intellectual abilities! Now I'm hurt.
I'll run away and hide from such a worthy adversary. Such a wordsmith. Oh,
you really put me in my place!

You could at least try to help them overcome their lack of
consideration and ignorance vice accepting it.

Do you realise that the above isn't even a legible sentence? It's quite
ironic isn't it? You know, after the above attack. Too funny!

stupid analogy and patronising pap deleted to spare the reader Hugh's false
logic attempts to obfuscate and mis-direct

OK, I'm done. Y'all get lost now, ya here!
no smiley for you

1/27/2004 8:45 AM

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Perhaps you should wait until you
are in middle shcool to respond - or get help with reading.

Oh, no! The patronizing debunk of my intellectual abilities! Now I'm hurt.
I'll run away and hide from such a worthy adversary. Such a wordsmith. Oh,
you really put me in my place!

You could at least try to help them overcome their lack of
consideration and ignorance vice accepting it.

Do you realise that the above isn't even a legible sentence? It's quite
ironic isn't it? You know, after the above attack. Too funny!

stupid analogy and patronising pap deleted to spare the reader Hugh's false
logic attempts to obfuscate and mis-direct

OK, I'm done. Y'all get lost now, ya here!
no smiley for you

Ah, Peter, you've done it now. He called me a boor recently. Shall we form
an exclusive society? I'm sure that others would qualify for membership.

Bob

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:51:38 GMT, Bob Ingraham
wrote:

1/27/2004 8:45 AM

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Perhaps you should wait until you
are in middle shcool to respond - or get help with reading.

Oh, no! The patronizing debunk of my intellectual abilities! Now I'm hurt.
I'll run away and hide from such a worthy adversary. Such a wordsmith. Oh,
you really put me in my place!

You could at least try to help them overcome their lack of
consideration and ignorance vice accepting it.

Do you realise that the above isn't even a legible sentence? It's quite
ironic isn't it? You know, after the above attack. Too funny!

stupid analogy and patronising pap deleted to spare the reader Hugh's false
logic attempts to obfuscate and mis-direct

OK, I'm done. Y'all get lost now, ya here!
no smiley for you

Ah, Peter, you've done it now. He called me a boor recently. Shall we form
an exclusive society? I'm sure that others would qualify for membership.

Is this about me? [ Looks around, wondering. ]

Tracy Barber

"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...
Ah, Peter, you've done it now. He called me a boor recently. Shall we form
an exclusive society? I'm sure that others would qualify for membership.

Sorry, Bob, but I make it a rule never to join a club that would have the
likes of me as a member. I mean, I do have standards you know! :-)