![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wow. What a mess this one is. No caps. Junk left at the bottom. Sig line
from a relative relic in this thread. My name below your response. Yeesh. And, no I don't know how many ISPs have stopped providing usenet. Don't see what the storage problem is with regular file dumping. Bless their caring hearts. I would think spam would be a whole lot more egregious and deserving of your wrath than a few extra lines, or lines not where you like them in usenet. It certainly wastes a much larger amount of bandwidth. mike (entire post left intact for a reason) regish "Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:36:33 GMT, mike regish wrote:
Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just overwhelmingly curious about this. well, I had to scroll down and read what and whom you are referring to. then I scrolled back up to read your post. I've stated a reason why top posting is a personal preference of mine. But well, live with it. it is ok for me. but it is also ok for me to adjust the score. well, I am not a factor here, but you get the idea. 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 nah. it is how things are read. from top the way down to the end. (...) 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. everybody gets what he deserves. (...) 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 heck. don't you think that pictures would be nice to be attached to postings? it would explain so much. where is the border? what is ok and what not? 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? most of the rules (netiquette for the net, etiquette for real life) come out of practice. 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 ( ... fullquote snipped ....) #m -- Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me? 'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | October 14th 04 06:10 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Student Pilot equipment | John Stevens | Piloting | 31 | May 31st 04 03:04 AM |