Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:57:40 GMT, Bob Ingraham
wrote:

I would like to add what is perhaps the last word in this thread. While I
prefer bottoms, tops are pleasant as well. :^)

Last word. I want last word.

--- word

Tracy Barber

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:41 GMT, Bob Ingraham
wrote:

1/15/2004 11:05 AM

Top posted, in honor of Ada Prill.

If newsgroupies would snip appropriately and judiciously, it wouldn't matter
whether posts were top, bottom, or on the side. I believe that someone --
Ada, I think -- has made that point. In one very reasonably moderated group
that I frequent, snipping is a requirement that makes good sense. It is very
easy to follow threads.

It's also worth noting that unless this newsgroup were to become a moderated
group, Hell will freeze over before you get such a diverse group as we to
follow any standard posting procedure. It ain't gonna happen, folks!

Now about Ada's "belligerence"! That's quite an image! Informed she is, and
generous, and broad-minded, and, yes, assertive. But those are good
qualities, noted in Ada's posts time and again over the several years that I
have been a member of this newsgroup.

Newsgroups posts can be so easily mis-read that it's important to choose
words carefully. It also behooves newbies to get to know the newsgroup over
time, rather than wading in to the fray with little knowledge. If Mr.
Sullivan's first post to this group had been met with the same apparent
vehemence that he dished out to Ada, I wonder whether he would still be
here.

Bob Ingraham

It's not my first post to this group. And if you thought I was
vehement you need to refer to your own words, i. e., "Newsgroups posts
can be so easily mis-read". I expressed myself in a very polite manner
and Ada replied in a polite manner. It appears that you are the only
one with boorish manners - or maybe you just misread what I said.

Hugh

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:32:40 GMT, "Bill Sharpe"
wrote:

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

It all depends...
If I am following a thread, I already know what the previous poster has
said. Scrolling to the bottom of a post to see the reply gets old fast.

What if the reply is several days later and you have read numerous
other news groups and threads in between postings? Do you really
remember what every previous poster said? I am humbled if you do.

Not a problem. I don't read that many posts. Generally speaking I find
threads much easier to follow with top posting. I already know what the
previous poster has said -- I am looking for the next poster's response and
it's much easier to see this if it's at the top of the post.

I probably read at least 100 posts per day on various subjects. That's
why my gripe would be about poor editing of posts before replying.

I do not automatically delete read messages, so if necessary I can either
scroll down or re-read the previous post.

I don't delete messages until I am tired of the thread and some are
more than 200 posts in length.

I suspect posts on this news group are more informative in nature
while some other groups are quite controversial and require one's
close attention to precise wording.

Hugh

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:10:15 GMT, Tracy Barber
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:34:13 -0600, S wrote:

Clicking on Subject arranges all post titles alphabetically, and first
column says "status". Threading is automatic by subject
(alphabetical), unless someone changes the header.

Exactly my point. My posts come in - in topic order and then date
time. I can follow a thread without having to do anything special.

That's really not the scroll problem.

I don't know why someone has to scroll through messages to get to
where they need to be and answer.

The problem occurs when there are a number of posts following the same
original thread and each of the posters has included all prior posts
in his response. In such a case top-posting makes sense even if a
violation of long-standing netiquette.

One doesn't have to scroll through "messages" but one often has to
scroll down a single post.

Perhaps thediscussions are not as lengthy here or as controversial as
many news groups.

Hugh

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 03:02:04 GMT, (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:10:15 GMT, Tracy Barber
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:34:13 -0600, S wrote:

Clicking on Subject arranges all post titles alphabetically, and first
column says "status". Threading is automatic by subject
(alphabetical), unless someone changes the header.

Exactly my point. My posts come in - in topic order and then date
time. I can follow a thread without having to do anything special.

That's really not the scroll problem.

I don't know why someone has to scroll through messages to get to
where they need to be and answer.

The problem occurs when there are a number of posts following the same
original thread and each of the posters has included all prior posts
in his response. In such a case top-posting makes sense even if a
violation of long-standing netiquette.

One doesn't have to scroll through "messages" but one often has to
scroll down a single post.

Perhaps thediscussions are not as lengthy here or as controversial as
many news groups.

Nope. The cascades are actually pretty short, overall. not like some
other groups where they go on for miles and miles...

Tracy Barber

[deliberately top-posted because it is better in this case -- imeo]

I started to read through this thread and having waded through the usual
pendantic appeals to ambiguous authorities, I once again will state that
debating the right way re top/bottom posting is like debating the 'right'
way to hang a toilet roll, top or bottom.

IT DOESN"T MATTER. IT'S A PERSONAL PREFERENCE!

I will not that the only ones who pedantically insist that there personal
preference is the right way are usually top posters.

"TC" wrote in message
...
Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting

The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.

Can anyone actually support this with verifiable evidence?

Or let's take a vote and decide what the majority of this groups users
prefer?

then there is the irony of a long-winded article on netiquette with a crappy
line-wrap that all but makes it unreadable! lol

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:49:02 GMT, (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:32:40 GMT, "Bill Sharpe"
wrote:

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

It all depends...
snip

I suspect posts on this news group are more informative in nature. . .
snip

Hugh
++++++++++++++
Hugh, Sir:
You have a point, for retaining certain informative posts in this
excellent group.

RCSD is fortunate to include scholarly tidbits such as TC's 8:28pm
" Stamp ID" complete with references, links, catalog suggestions,
which are useful for far more than just identifying the specific
stamps in question.

The sure way to preserve that kind of post would be to "SaveAs" to a
good Folder on your hard drive, or to a backup Iomega ZipDisk, or even
a CD. But if you subscribe to a good news Service, they will retain
posts for several months if you wish, provided that you do not
configure your news Reader (Agent, for example) not to wipe them out
in 3 days or so. As Tracy mentioned, any individual can choose to get
rid of every post as soon as he has read it. You can even delete any
header without even reading that one, if that is your choice.

(Look at today's separate "reply" to Rodney's April Fool story.)

There happens to be plenty of space on my PC, so my own choice has
been to simply retain all RCSD headers until they expire on my News
Service. If spam appears and annoys me, that one gets deleted.
But if some Post is so special that i might want it a year from now,
then it becomes essential to save that one in a separate Folder before
the News Service drops it.

Trivia such as this one can simply disappear with age,
along with overly-long threads and bantering!
S.

"Ada Prill" wrote in message
...

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

As a newcomer to this news group I note that you have exercised your
right to choose (to top post) but failed to give any credible reasons
for doing so - or any incredible ones for that matter.

For those of us who have news readers that bunch postings by thread, it is
extremely irritating to read message A, scroll through A to get to B six
seconds later, scroll through A and B to get to C six seconds after that,
etc. If I have not recently seen A and B, it is easy enough to refresh my
memory by scrolling down, but the usual situation is that I have JUST read
the postings that I must scroll through to get to the new information.
When
the thread gets long, I really detest having to go through multiple
screens
of previously read stuff to get to something at the bottom that says "I
agree with XXX," when I could have found this brief entry quite easily on
the top.

This illustrates perfectly the selfishness and silliness of the *only*
argument that top-posters have ever been able to present for their behavior.
"I am too lazy to do some scrolling - wears me right out to press that PgDn
key 3 or 4 times! I don't care how much top posting makes things
unintelligible or difficult for others, I'm going to keep doing it *MY*
way."

Perhaps you might explain WHY you top-post and the reason for your
apparent belligerence.

No belligerence intended. I simply said that I was not going to abide by
this newly-invented "rule"

Hardly a newly-invented rule, having been around since the start of USENET.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

I would like to add what is perhaps the last word in this thread. While I
prefer bottoms, tops are pleasant as well. :^)

Last word. I want last word.

--- word

Tracy Barber

Word Up!

David, feeling very paranoid!

"Bill Sharpe" wrote in message
. ..

snip

I don't read that many posts. Generally speaking I find
threads much easier to follow with top posting. I already know what the
previous poster has said -- I am looking for the next poster's response
and
it's much easier to see this if it's at the top of the post.

I do not automatically delete read messages, so if necessary I can either
scroll down or re-read the previous post.

Bill


I normally top post replies to e-mail, but bottom post for newsgroups. I
can live easily enough with either type of posting. I have established
settings so messages are retained for a week after being downloaded.
Generally, that makes it easy enough for me to regain the proper context of
a reply to an uncited previous message if necessary.

Scrolling down presents no problem to me, since the mouse I use has a scroll
wheel. A quick roll (or two or three) of the wheel while scanning the left
side of the message box for the end to the "" designation of the previous
message lets me find the new stuff in less time than it takes to think about
it.

For my money, the content of the post is far more interesting than whether
it's at the top or bottom. Then again, I can get *really* ticked about
stuff that's no big deal to most folks.

Can we start side-posting now---rotate the screen 90 degrees and write a
reply along the side of the prior message?

Now *that* would be cool!

Mike