Student Pilot lands short of runway

I am with You on this on Mike!

I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the
top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
same.....calendars ? ...same....

And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
all the way on the BOTTOM????

I don't thing so...

Dave



On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:45:02 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:

I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
message.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...
Some people like top-posting

Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on the
basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
any
sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the usual
"include the entire previous post".

Pete

And this is being argued on the basis of etiquette, of all things. I just
don't get it. Etiquette has to do with manners adn politeness and such. I
don't get where we're somehow being rude by posting replies on top. I tried
to point out a "practical" reason to post on top, but Pete thinks I'm
somehow being rude by trying to make things easier.

Oh well. To each, etc.

And here I've gone and wasted even more of my not so valuable time when I
said I wouldn't.

Thanks for the vote of support, though. Maybe someday reason will rule and
not arbitrary rules.

Sorry if I've offended anybody by top posting again. Guess it's just my
nature to be rude.

mike (I like high wings because I like to look down) regish

wrote in message
...
I am with You on this on Mike!

I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the
top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
same.....calendars ? ...same....

And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
all the way on the BOTTOM????

I don't thing so...

Dave



On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:45:02 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:

I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down
every
message.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...
Some people like top-posting

Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on
the
basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
any
sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the
usual
"include the entire previous post".

Pete

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:skauc.11218$pt3.1381@attbi_s03...
Sorry if I've offended anybody by top posting again. Guess it's just my
nature to be rude.

I generally bottom post. I used to top post. I got used to bottom
posting because I generally like to reply to bits in between. Comment
on different things. If it's all coherent though, I prefer seeing people's
top posts if I'm reading a thread. If I pick up half way through, I
prefer seeing bottom posts as it's in the right order. Really though,
I'm not that fussed...

mike (I like high wings because I like to look down) regish

I'm lazy. I fly a tricycle geared plane.

Paul

On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:31:14 GMT, wrote:

I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

it is a free world.
do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not read
by bottom posters (and vice versa).
you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the postings.

Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the

that email replies are put on top is due to the sick clients from one
bigger company.

top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
same.....calendars ? ...same....

and books? you expect the end of each page on top of the page?
if you want to put an analogy to real life then books or sheets of paper
are IMNSHO the best.

And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
all the way on the BOTTOM????

it is threading. you know? na. probably not.

Dave

(.... useless fullquote snipped ...)

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
overwhelmingly curious about this.

I've stated a reason why top posting is a personal preference of mine. But
the argument against top posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to fly
a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly). I read them
all-top or bottom. I just prefer top. I prefer a high wing because I like to
look down and I like to take pictures. I have absolutely nothing against
people who fly low wings. I'm sure they have their reasons for that
particular preference. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I
prefer top posting because I like to go from message to message with the
arrow keys rather than the mouse when I can. Normal etiquette has to do with
things like where the forks and knives go in a dinner setting. I can find
them as long as they're somewhere on the table. I don't care where you put
them, but in formal setting there is a "right" side and a "wrong" side,
according to etiquette. Again, I'm not going to stop patronizing a
restaurant because they had the audacity to put the silverware in the wrong
spots. I can see where the snootier patrons might somehow be offended and
refuse to go there anymore, or complain to the server or manager or
something equally petty. I just don't consider it, or myself, to be that
important. What IS bad netiquette-and I can see the reason why, even though
I'm guilty of it right now-is posting off topic. Yet, ironically, the one
who started the off topic posting is the one complaining about netiquette.
Also, by implying that top posters are lazy, he's indirectly confirmed that
top posting is easier.

I also preferred the way I could sort threads with Netscape, but that
software has caused problems with my computer, so I removed it and deal with
some minor inconveniences in OE, but that also seems to somehow be a
violation of etiquette, or just some reason to make me somehow inferior to
those who use other readers.

I don't mean to prolong this thread, but I'm really trying to understand how
anybody can get their panties in such a bunch over something so trivial and
so much a matter of personal preference.

And if my plane wasn't getting its annual right now, I wouldn't even be
participating in this NG because of these types of arguments or
debates-both, I guess since some is debate and some is just argumentative.

If you prefer bottom posting, by all means go right ahead. I prefer sending
and receiving top posts, unless I'm responding to particular pieces of a
post, in which case I post my response below each particular piece. On most
posts I can rather easily tell what's being responded to, but if there's any
confusion I know I can scroll down to clear it up.

I also don't mind some people not trimming their posts as I don't always get
the original post if I come in late. Then I look for a post that hasn't been
snipped to get caught up. And they certainly don't seem to take up any more
time or space than snipped posts. I wouldn't want them all like that, but I
find a few to be helpful. Yet that is almost a capital crime to some folks.

Is there an Emily Post of the internet? If so, does she have a rationale for
all the rules of netiquette? Are some arbitrary? Traditional? Practical?

I don't really NEED to know. Just trying to make sense of something that
seems to me to be pure nonsense coming from otherwise very sensible people.

mike regish



"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:31:14 GMT, wrote:

I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

it is a free world.
do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not read
by bottom posters (and vice versa).
you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the postings.

Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
overwhelmingly curious about this. [...] the argument against top
posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to fly
a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly).


IMHO top posting and bottom posting each have their uses, as does "nop" posting
(posting a reply which, does not quote anything, but does address points in the
thread). Nop posting works in some situations if the post is self-contained.

Etiquette is based on the idea of making things easy and pleasant for others.
To use the (not very good) airplane analogy, it's more like saying it's not
proper etiquette to fly =passengers= in a low wing plane (because they can't
see down) or in a high wing plane (because it makes them look like sissies* ).
The focus is on the passengers.

Personally, if the post lends itself I like to see a snippet of what is being
replied to before I see the reply to that point, and then to see the next
snippet before the reply to =it=. I do not want to see a whole slug first, and
it annoys me to have to scroll down the entire post before I get to the
original material. I often skip those (they are often followed by "me too" or
by comments whose reltionship to the post requires me to go back and find
specific things there.

Posts come to servers way out of order, so the context is often needed.

However, there are some threads in which the context is evident from the
original material, or where the posts tend to be presented in order to most
readers. In those cases, posting the reply first, and then the post being
replied to for reference =just in case= it's needed, works best for most.

However, on USENET, everyone is an expert whose Exalted Opinions (tm) must be
followed by fiat. When this doesn't happen, sixteen million rulers come down
on somebody's knuckles, in the name of kindness.

Jose
* well, I had to think of something!


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Notice the top post...

This whole debate reminds me of the ****wit who years ago told me my long
email was a waste of precious net bandwidth, and merited some form of
corporal punishment. There's nothing like righteous indignation on trivial
matters to make one wonder how some people's brains actually work.

USENET is free. It's a nice way to share thoughts on topics of common
interest. If you don't like the way a particular post looks, DON"T READ
IT!!!

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:l4ouc.19595$eY2.15166@attbi_s02...
Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
overwhelmingly curious about this.

I've stated a reason why top posting is a personal preference of mine. But
the argument against top posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to
fly
a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly). I read them
all-top or bottom. I just prefer top. I prefer a high wing because I like
to
look down and I like to take pictures. I have absolutely nothing against
people who fly low wings. I'm sure they have their reasons for that
particular preference. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I
prefer top posting because I like to go from message to message with the
arrow keys rather than the mouse when I can. Normal etiquette has to do
with
things like where the forks and knives go in a dinner setting. I can find
them as long as they're somewhere on the table. I don't care where you put
them, but in formal setting there is a "right" side and a "wrong" side,
according to etiquette. Again, I'm not going to stop patronizing a
restaurant because they had the audacity to put the silverware in the
wrong
spots. I can see where the snootier patrons might somehow be offended and
refuse to go there anymore, or complain to the server or manager or
something equally petty. I just don't consider it, or myself, to be that
important. What IS bad netiquette-and I can see the reason why, even
though
I'm guilty of it right now-is posting off topic. Yet, ironically, the one
who started the off topic posting is the one complaining about netiquette.
Also, by implying that top posters are lazy, he's indirectly confirmed
that
top posting is easier.

I also preferred the way I could sort threads with Netscape, but that
software has caused problems with my computer, so I removed it and deal
with
some minor inconveniences in OE, but that also seems to somehow be a
violation of etiquette, or just some reason to make me somehow inferior to
those who use other readers.

I don't mean to prolong this thread, but I'm really trying to understand
how
anybody can get their panties in such a bunch over something so trivial
and
so much a matter of personal preference.

And if my plane wasn't getting its annual right now, I wouldn't even be
participating in this NG because of these types of arguments or
debates-both, I guess since some is debate and some is just argumentative.

If you prefer bottom posting, by all means go right ahead. I prefer
sending
and receiving top posts, unless I'm responding to particular pieces of a
post, in which case I post my response below each particular piece. On
most
posts I can rather easily tell what's being responded to, but if there's
any
confusion I know I can scroll down to clear it up.

I also don't mind some people not trimming their posts as I don't always
get
the original post if I come in late. Then I look for a post that hasn't
been
snipped to get caught up. And they certainly don't seem to take up any
more
time or space than snipped posts. I wouldn't want them all like that, but
I
find a few to be helpful. Yet that is almost a capital crime to some
folks.

Is there an Emily Post of the internet? If so, does she have a rationale
for
all the rules of netiquette? Are some arbitrary? Traditional? Practical?

I don't really NEED to know. Just trying to make sense of something that
seems to me to be pure nonsense coming from otherwise very sensible
people.

mike regish



"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:31:14 GMT, wrote:

I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

it is a free world.
do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not
read
by bottom posters (and vice versa).
you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the
postings.

"Windecks" wrote in message
om...
[...]
USENET is free.

If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is free,
you are a "****wit" yourself.

OK. Maybe not "free", but included in the price.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Windecks" wrote in message
om...
[...]
USENET is free.

If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is
free,
you are a "****wit" yourself.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:58:42 GMT, mike regish wrote:

OK. Maybe not "free", but included in the price.


a good one.
do you know how many ISPs stopped providing usenet?
many ISPs have newsservers because there are people working in the IT
department who care.

mike regish


#m


[...]
USENET is free.

If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is
free,
you are a "****wit" yourself.




--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting