A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Student Pilot lands short of runway



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 30th 04, 05:55 PM
Teacherjh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.