O.T. Actual airline pilot conversations

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote:

Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already
read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at
the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a
minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are
included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's
proper context.

What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the
people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm
speaking of those with English as their native language here), including
proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts,
but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on
perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others
to conform to my personal standards.

It just isn't that big a deal.

Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off
from lack of acrimony. :-)

Response at the bottom!

Jo Anne Slaven wrote:

Dave Holford wrote:

It's just like paper files.


Yup.

Most people who don't have time to waste post the latest document on
top.


Most people who are only concerned about their own convenience put the
latest document in the place that is easiest for them to reach.

Those who have nothing better to do with their time open the fastener,
take out all the documents, put the latest on the bottom and then
replace all the previous ones so that everything is in sequence. It
keeps them happy and occupied!





People who wish to conform to previously established conventions, making
it easier for their peers to find information quickly, will file the
documents the way it has historically been done, so as not to confuse
people.


Exactly - the latest to arrive goes on top.
Just like the "IN" box on a desk which contains responses to
correspondence.
It is a stack, not a queue.

Actually I agree with Bill Denton. In those newsgroups where top posting
is the standard I try to top post and in those where bottom posting is
the standard I try to bottom post.

Sometimes when I'm more interested in the content than the policy I get
it wrong. It's like arguing religion - pointless, the believers believe
they are right and nothing will convert them. It makes for interminable
threads whose content bears no relationship to the header whatsoever -
how that helps to not confuse people escapes me. One would expect that
if helping peers find information quickly was even a minor consideration
the first action would be to make the header relevant.


But, it does provide some light entertainment on a slow day.

Dave

In article , PJ Hunt
wrote:

I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top and now
I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today? I'm
referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have never
seen a response posted before I've seen the original post. If I had then
perhaps this would make more sense to me. Is usenet still this slow and
expensive today and if so, why on earth do people use it?

Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
Africa and the South Pole.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:01:51 GMT, wrote:

There are even groups (Hallicrafters for one) that encourage top
posting for their blind participants. So for all the blind pilots....

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote:

Can't speak for anybody else, but I top post so that those that have already
read the previous messages can easily see my response, it's right there at
the top. For those that need to be brought up to speed, (generally a
minority), they can scroll down to read the previous messages, which are
included intact (usually) so they can see everything in each message in it's
proper context.

What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like. Just like the
people who can't/won't use proper, grammatically correct English (I'm
speaking of those with English as their native language here), including
proper capitalization and punctuation. It annoys me to read these posts,
but I'm not going to make a big flaming war out of it. I don't insist on
perfection from others, as I'm not perfect myself. Nor do I expect others
to conform to my personal standards.

It just isn't that big a deal.

Four more postings like yours and this thread will die off
from lack of acrimony. :-)

Three to go.

Although I prefer to intersperse comments.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

It's the net Nazi way to weed out the lazy. I prefer reading top posts, too,
but the old timers set the standards and don't want their authority
questioned.

mike regish

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
k...
Bob,

That brings up a question you might be able to answer for me. I've never
understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing. What am I
missing?

Cheers,
Shawn

Bingo! My feelings exactly, but you'll never convince the net Nazis of that.

mike regish

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
k...



I guess I actually prefer top posting, especially when I'm reading a
thread, as I've already read the original post and just want to read
someone's reply, not page down through dozens of lines to see it.

Cheers,
Shawn

Good point. But again, you'll never convince the net Nazis.

mike regish

wrote in message
...

Not if you're used to reading correspondence files where the
latest communication is at the top odf the stack. If you're keeping up
with the conversation, you shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to
see the idiot one-liners tacked onto the untrimmed former posting.

If you haven't been keeping up, you should be the one
inconvenienced.

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in

Because USENET goes places where there is no Internet, like central
Africa and the South Pole.

Well that makes absolutely no sense at all. Just as the majority of excuses
I've seen for top posting.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

Should have been:

Just as the majority of excuses I've seen against top posting.

PJ

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:19:03 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote
in ::


What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like.

You've obviously never attempted to use Google Advanced Group Search
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en to follow a
message thread that has taken place over a period of weeks. If you
feel your contributions are worth archiving, why not make the
researcher's job easier by placing your followup articles in
chronological order with the newest at the bottom?

I'm not sure how google orders their information, but on many servers
it's pure accident if the posts fall in order. It's not at all
uncommon to see two or three answers before the original shows up.
A search based on order should do it's own ordering by date/time. If
it doesn't, it's broken.

Threads often do not follow in order which can be very confusing when
answers are posted with no quoting.



Of course, if you're articles don't contain INFORMATION of any
consequence, you're probably not concerned about how they are
archived.

You just eliminated over 99% of the posts in the archives.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com