Why is Soaring declining

ADP wrote:
I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
Perhaps it is a European thing.
At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

If you type "top posting" into google (with quotes) you'll get endless
series of careful explanations and rants on the evils of top posting.

Thanks,

Allan


"nafod40" wrote in message
...
ADP wrote:
I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
Perhaps it is a European thing.
At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

If you type "top posting" into google (with quotes) you'll get endless
series of careful explanations and rants on the evils of top posting.

I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
top posting don't read my posts.

Allan


See below:

"The Lion's Grove: Ramblings: Top Posting: The Source Of All Evil?

'Kay, so I'm reading the newsgroups. Yeah, I know. I generally dislike
them because they seem to be only good for flamewars, but I've been
extremely bored lately, and it's something to pass the time.

In the rare instances that legitimate topics are actually discussed,
there will come along a person who wants to contribute to the conversation
and will post the information at the top of the message, known as
"top-posting." And of course, this person will be jumped on, ridiculed,
humiliated, beat about the head and shoulders with a salami, and generally
be made to feel very unwelcome.

I've just read another of these threads. One person top-posted and
there followed a coupla dozen posts saying how it is poor netiquette, how it
is generally accepted practice not to do so, and one giving a link to a list
of FAQs explaining how it has been decided this should be so. There were
messages saying that the top-posting person "violated the social morays[sic]
of the group" and should basically conform to their standards because it is
somehow more polite. There was also much unnecessary name-calling and
insults directed at people who are different.

[*Note: I'm really having to fight the urge to go off on a rant about
how "morays" should be spelled "mores" and the fact that if people aren't
familiar with a word and its use, they shouldn't be throwing the damn thing
around. A "moray" is, in fact, an eel and of course should never be
violated. "Mores" are social norms taken so seriously that laws tend to be
created based on them. Oh wait...]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I actually like it when
people top-post. Reading through hundreds of messages goes by much faster
when I can see at a glance what's being said without having to constantly
scroll through the entire message. I don't get all huffy and insult the
person. I move on to the next message and continue with my reading. Why is
it so difficult for others to do the same?

Went and found a site that gives some admittedly good reasons why
folks should not top-post. I'm going to use these from
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm cuz they're a lot shorter and to
the point than most other sites.

"First, top posters tend never to snip, never to shorten that to which
they reply. So people whose download time costs money are wasting money
downloading enormous lengths of stuff they have already read."

This I can understand. But it is the lack of snippage that should be
addressed.

"Second, and connected, is that you do not know with top posting
whether someone has written something else later on, so do you waste your
time going through it?"

Is this really a problem? Isn't it usually pretty obvious that the
poster has said all he has intended to say? if he hasn't attached his
top-posted comments directly to a portion of the previous post, what makes
you think he's going to do it further along in the message? And is it really
that big a deal to scroll down and check? You're going to scroll through
other messages anyway. But I guess a top-poster's messages are a waste of
time...

"Third, it is much easier to read things in order, and you can see
with good Netiquette how easily it flows."

This is usually followed by an insanely simple example which,
incidentally, could all use a bit of snipping for the "he wrote:, she
wrote:, bob wrote:, god wrote:" prefixes. Newsgroup posts are rarely that
simple, at least from what I've seen. It's usually more along the lines of:

[obscene amount of header crap left on so someone can show off their
"witty"
personalization]
[more header crap]
[still more header crap]
[and even more header crap]
Hi, my name is Lisa and I'm new to the group. I just wanted to
share that I just read
this great book on pasta, it's called "The Joy of Pasta." You
should really check it
out.
[no longer crossposted as this person finally got a clue]
I read that book and really like it too. I love the recipes!
[crossposted to a dozen other completely unrelated newsgroups]
i'll show ya pasta baybeeee
[followed by a signature, usually trying to show how "l33t" the
poster is]
[also posted to the dozen other groups because the poster forgot to
take them off of
the To: field]
If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything at
all.
Oh, get off your high horse. By responding to them you're only
encouraging them. Get
over it.
[yada yada]
I look forward to being a part of the group!
[followed by long irritating signature]
Welcome to the group!
[followed by a signature]
Hope you like it here!
[followed by more signature]

Throw in some bad spelling, some obscenities from a troll, and some
bad formatting, and you've got a rather difficult message to read. Which
leads me to a) if you can understand that mess, a person posting at the top
shouldn't throw you off that much, and b) if you can't understand that mess,
what does it matter where the next person puts their message? You're not
gonna get it anyway. The main issue here is snippage. If people would just
learn to cut out all the irrelevent and unnecessary crap, there wouldn't be
any problems understanding where the message is going.

I think what it really comes down to is that people don't like when
someone comes in and disrupts their structured little world. Top-posting
isn't going to cause California to fall off into the ocean [yes, this would
be a bad thing, at least to the Californians], so why act like it will?"


..
2nd source:

"BUT not snipping is a far worse disease. If you read a five screen article,
and you like it, it is the height of selfishness to leave the whole five
screens while you add a single line to say how much you like it - and it
does not matter which end you put it, it is still very unfair on others and
shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters. You should leave in a
paragraph or two, not more, unless you are specifically referring to bits.
Then you leave in the bits to which you refer, and reply just after them.

So, please snip, that is vital, please do not top post, but that is not so
important."

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:46:05 -0700, "ADP"
wrote:

I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
top posting don't read my posts.


Good examples. As to the rambling sigs,

- its usually considered bad form to use more than a four line sig

- you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Martin Gregorie writes:

I knew this was going to happen...

- you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.

Wrong. So stupid reasons burried in history, a sig marker is `dash
dash SPACE' all on a line of its own. Yes, a trailing space. -- is in
fact quite common in the body of the postings on some newsgroups.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

I put my sig the way it is to stop the news poster program from adding
advertisements onto my sig. God knows why the university let
the newsreader provider do that...

Paul Repacholi wrote:
Martin Gregorie writes:

I knew this was going to happen...

- you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.

Wrong. So stupid reasons burried in history, a sig marker is `dash
dash SPACE' all on a line of its own. Yes, a trailing space. -- is in
fact quite common in the body of the postings on some newsgroups.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

"ADP" wrote in message ...
I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
top posting don't read my posts.

Allan


See below:

"The Lion's Grove: Ramblings: Top Posting: The Source Of All Evil?

'Kay, so I'm reading the newsgroups. Yeah, I know. I generally dislike
them because they seem to be only good for flamewars, but I've been
extremely bored lately, and it's something to pass the time.

In the rare instances that legitimate topics are actually discussed,
there will come along a person who wants to contribute to the conversation
and will post the information at the top of the message, known as
"top-posting." And of course, this person will be jumped on, ridiculed,
humiliated, beat about the head and shoulders with a salami, and generally
be made to feel very unwelcome.

I've just read another of these threads. One person top-posted and
there followed a coupla dozen posts saying how it is poor netiquette, how it
is generally accepted practice not to do so, and one giving a link to a list
of FAQs explaining how it has been decided this should be so. There were
messages saying that the top-posting person "violated the social morays[sic]
of the group" and should basically conform to their standards because it is
somehow more polite. There was also much unnecessary name-calling and
insults directed at people who are different.

[*Note: I'm really having to fight the urge to go off on a rant about
how "morays" should be spelled "mores" and the fact that if people aren't
familiar with a word and its use, they shouldn't be throwing the damn thing
around. A "moray" is, in fact, an eel and of course should never be
violated. "Mores" are social norms taken so seriously that laws tend to be
created based on them. Oh wait...]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I actually like it when
people top-post. Reading through hundreds of messages goes by much faster
when I can see at a glance what's being said without having to constantly

I think that replies should be inserted at random points within the
quoted text. My reasoning is explained below.

scroll through the entire message. I don't get all huffy and insult the
person. I move on to the next message and continue with my reading. Why is
it so difficult for others to do the same?

Went and found a site that gives some admittedly good reasons why
folks should not top-post. I'm going to use these from
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm cuz they're a lot shorter and to
the point than most other sites.

"First, top posters tend never to snip, never to shorten that to which
they reply. So people whose download time costs money are wasting money
downloading enormous lengths of stuff they have already read."

This I can understand. But it is the lack of snippage that should be
addressed.

"Second, and connected, is that you do not know with top posting
whether someone has written something else later on, so do you waste your
time going through it?"

Is this really a problem? Isn't it usually pretty obvious that the
poster has said all he has intended to say? if he hasn't attached his
top-posted comments directly to a portion of the previous post, what makes
you think he's going to do it further along in the message? And is it really
that big a deal to scroll down and check? You're going to scroll through
other messages anyway. But I guess a top-poster's messages are a waste of
time...

"Third, it is much easier to read things in order, and you can see
with good Netiquette how easily it flows."

This is usually followed by an insanely simple example which,
incidentally, could all use a bit of snipping for the "he wrote:, she
wrote:, bob wrote:, god wrote:" prefixes. Newsgroup posts are rarely that
simple, at least from what I've seen. It's usually more along the lines of:

[obscene amount of header crap left on so someone can show off their
"witty"
personalization]
[more header crap]
[still more header crap]
[and even more header crap]
Hi, my name is Lisa and I'm new to the group. I just wanted to
share that I just read
this great book on pasta, it's called "The Joy of Pasta." You
should really check it
out.
[no longer crossposted as this person finally got a clue]
I read that book and really like it too. I love the recipes!

Did I mention that Lennie is a jerk?

[crossposted to a dozen other completely unrelated newsgroups]
i'll show ya pasta baybeeee
[followed by a signature, usually trying to show how "l33t" the
poster is]
[also posted to the dozen other groups because the poster forgot to
take them off of
the To: field]
If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything at
all.
Oh, get off your high horse. By responding to them you're only
encouraging them. Get
over it.
[yada yada]
I look forward to being a part of the group!
[followed by long irritating signature]
Welcome to the group!
[followed by a signature]
Hope you like it here!
[followed by more signature]

Throw in some bad spelling, some obscenities from a troll, and some
bad formatting, and you've got a rather difficult message to read. Which
leads me to a) if you can understand that mess, a person posting at the top
shouldn't throw you off that much, and b) if you can't understand that mess,
what does it matter where the next person puts their message? You're not
gonna get it anyway. The main issue here is snippage. If people would just
learn to cut out all the irrelevent and unnecessary crap, there wouldn't be
any problems understanding where the message is going.

I think what it really comes down to is that people don't like when
someone comes in and disrupts their structured little world. Top-posting
isn't going to cause California to fall off into the ocean [yes, this would
be a bad thing, at least to the Californians], so why act like it will?"


.
2nd source:

"BUT not snipping is a far worse disease. If you read a five screen article,
and you like it, it is the height of selfishness to leave the whole five
screens while you add a single line to say how much you like it - and it
does not matter which end you put it, it is still very unfair on others and
shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters. You should leave in a
paragraph or two, not more, unless you are specifically referring to bits.
Then you leave in the bits to which you refer, and reply just after them.

So, please snip, that is vital, please do not top post, but that is not so
important."