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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
You've just provided an argument against `snipping'. You've just taken a
portion of a conversation out of context. By doing so you illegitimately attempt to validate your own opinion. By removing the line that precedes what you've quoted: "What I'm attempting to convey in my comment:" .... you've corrupted the conversation to your own ends by making it appear that I've just either bottom-posted or replied in-line; causing me to appear as a hypocrite. The section your are referring to should properly read, and I quote: "What I'm attempting to convey in my comment: Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you opened this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here' ... three seconds and you found your goal. Life is good. 8) .... is that when you opened your reader program, when you selected this message to read, what did you see first? ..." If usenet content was friendlier towards quoting, indentation and other formating tools, I could have made a more elaborate quoting implementation, however, it is also obvious that once you read the mis-quoted element in context, the portion of text you have deliberately edited is meant as quoted content. "Steve Hayes" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:17:43 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" noEMAILforYOU wrote: Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you opened this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here' ... three seconds and you found your goal. Life is good. 8) ... is that when you opened your reader program, when you selected this message to read, what did you see first? This. This text. This top-posted reply. This effort took all of three seconds for you to recognize. No other effort, no matter how small, was required by you to process my reply. No mousing, no scrolling. Chances are very good that you grew up in a culture that reads top to bottom. And where is my reply text right now? In some strange places, it seems. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6915 (20120225) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- [Robert] __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6915 (20120225) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:52:56 -0500, Stan Brown
wrote: Your argument is essentially that you want to put your stuff in the wrong position because you can't be bothered to do the editing. In other words, your time is more important than that of thousands of readers. I don't think so. And it's not like the editing is that hard to do. Here's my view (basically similar to yours). Bottom posting is bad because you have to scroll down (sometimes way down) to get to the reply. Top posting is even worse because you first have to scroll down to find what is being replied to, and then back up to read the reply. But if you do a good job of editing the text in the message you're replying to, it hardly matters whether you bottom post or top post. If both your reply and what you are replying to can fit on the screen, top or bottom doesn't matter much. But if you are replying to several different points, then as far as I'm concerned, inline posting, with the reply to each post following what is being replied to, is necessary. Anything else muddies the waters terribly. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On 2/25/2012, Robert Sudbury posted:
Despite your apparent lack of conversation skills, I still scrolled through to the bottom of your reply to read your one-line insult. I respect your choice to bottom post, but I suggest you try to articulate yourself in a less demeaning manner. As for your argument pro or con, I see none. :-) Robert, I suggest you don't bother with this argument any more. No one will change their minds, some insults will be traded, and often, it will still be necessary to scroll to the bottom of a long series of replies to learn that the poster forgot to type his contribution, or that he did remember but *should* have forgotten :-) "Erik Vastmasd" wrote in message ... SNIP -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
I was awaiting one last reply to close out my arguments.
I honestly sat myself down and put some thought into my position on posting style. I'm not averse to change, but I see no compelling reason to change at this time. Before this NG is polluted further by off-topic shenanigans, I will leave this thread with these parting thoughts. My initial reason for hijacking this thread was to defend another poster's right to post in the style of their choice. I think I've defended his/her right, established my opinion and generated some mostly civil discourse. My opinion is that posting style is subject to context and choice. In the context of this un-moderated newsgroup, that is neither relevant to nor implies connection to life-saving medical or scientific research, legal consul, private, corporate, governing or theological official discussion, the choice of posting style is entirely up to the poster, and no one way is right or wrong. We all have our personal reasons for choosing a particular style and that is all the reason one needs. Finally, further to my re-thinking of my personal choice for posting style, I realized that I came to my conclusion a very long time ago. For most people these days who still participate in usenet newgroups, technology often plays a major role in our lives and lifestyles. As such, we are more aware of technological change than most. Technology by its very nature is all about change; so I thought. Since I last pondered my reasons, what has changed that could possible sway me away from my choice? One particular thought reinforced my opinion. With the advent of cell phone technology, WiFi and the proliferation of handheld devices, especially tablets and smart phones with their small displays, if I must read newsgroups through any one of a number of mobile, wireless devices, which posting style would I prefer to be faced with? "Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message ... On 2/25/2012, Robert Sudbury posted: Despite your apparent lack of conversation skills, I still scrolled through to the bottom of your reply to read your one-line insult. I respect your choice to bottom post, but I suggest you try to articulate yourself in a less demeaning manner. As for your argument pro or con, I see none. :-) Robert, I suggest you don't bother with this argument any more. No one will change their minds, some insults will be traded, and often, it will still be necessary to scroll to the bottom of a long series of replies to learn that the poster forgot to type his contribution, or that he did remember but *should* have forgotten :-) "Erik Vastmasd" wrote in message ... SNIP -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6915 (20120225) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- [Robert] __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6915 (20120225) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:17:43 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" noEMAILforYOU
wrote: What I'm attempting to convey in my comment: Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you opened this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here' ... three seconds and you found your goal. Life is good. 8) ... is that when you opened your reader program, when you selected this message to read, what did you see first? This. This text. This top-posted reply. This effort took all of three seconds for you to recognize. No other effort, no matter how small, was required by you to process my reply. No mousing, no scrolling. Chances are very good that you grew up in a culture that reads top to bottom. And where is my reply text right now? No mousing, no scrolling? You're completely overlooking the fact that I had to scroll down to see who and what you were replying to, then scroll back up to read your reply. If I had skipped the scrolling and simply started reading your reply, I wouldn't have had any context. So while you apparently think you're doing your readers a favor, you're actually doing the opposite. -- Char Jackson |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:40:27 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" noEMAILforYOU
wrote: Quite the opposite. I consider all time valuable. WHAT is quite the opposite? Opposite of what? (Hang on while I scroll down to see who and what you're replying to.) Ok, I'm back. Thanks for making me scroll down and back up in order to make sense of your post. I've just saved you three seconds by not bottom posting. Hmm, but you cost me a lot more time than that by making me scroll down and back up. What is it you're trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you quite sure this isn't just a case of being too lazy to place your comments where they make contextual sense? Be honest now, when you opened or first viewed this message, what part of the body of this reply did you see first? I saw the answer first, then I scrolled down to see the question, and finally back up to re-read the answer. Thanks, I guess. By the way, NOD32 can be configured to stop announcing that it has checked your post prior to submission. We don't really need to see that. -- Char Jackson |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:12:25 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" noEMAILforYOU
wrote: You've just provided an argument against `snipping'. You've just taken a portion of a conversation out of context. By doing so you illegitimately attempt to validate your own opinion. I did??! Oh wait, let me scroll down to see to whom you're directing those comments. Oh, ok, Steve Hayes. Thanks for making me scroll down and back up again. You could have saved me, and everyone else, the effort, you know, just by placing your reply properly. -- Char Jackson |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:04:43 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" wrote:
Top-posting is inclusive; it doesn't exclude or frustrate those users not "Exclude" is a chimera. And your upside-down posting *does* frustrate many of us. Fortunately, there are killfiles. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On 2/25/2012 2:40 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:17:43 -0500, "Robert Sudbury"noEMAILforYOU wrote: What I'm attempting to convey in my comment: Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you opened this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here' ... three seconds and you found your goal. Life is good. 8) snip No mousing, no scrolling? You're completely overlooking the fact that I had to scroll down to see who and what you were replying to, then scroll back up to read your reply. If I had skipped the scrolling and simply started reading your reply, I wouldn't have had any context. So while you apparently think you're doing your readers a favor, you're actually doing the opposite. Char has hit the nail on the head. Number one reason for not top posting is that it forces the readers to double read many things that otherwise wouldn't be necessary. Robert does not really understand the meaning of "bottom posting." Evidently, he thinks it means your reply goes all the way at the bottom. In reality, it means your words go "below" what you are responding to. This combined with proper snipping makes a thread flow as in conversation. Email, especially business email, is a different animal. That smart and handheld devices currently have limitations is not a viable reason to change accepted procedures here. They will catch up. It is said that people who top post are one of three things: newbie, lazy or stupid. They can be any combination, or even all three of the above. Hopefully, they outgrow the phase and try to fit in. I suggest there is another description: Troll. In that case, Stan has the best option. Killfile and get it over with. sticks |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On 25/02/2012 22:04, sticks wrote:
It is said that people who top post are one of three things: newbie, lazy or stupid. They can be any combination, or even all three of the above. Hopefully, they outgrow the phase and try to fit in. sticks Sorry to butt in on this fascinating conversation, but I just have to jump in here. I agree that there are many who are either a newbie, lazy or stupid, but not everyone who top posts falls into these categories. I think in any group the convention that should be followed is that of the specific group, and those wishing to post in it should abide by the majority and learn to observe the convention before wading in. In this particular group I would bottom post, or possibly post inline if required. In other groups that I'm subscribed to, many of which are specifically for the blind or for those with an interest in blind technology, the convention is for top posting because it takes time for screen readers or braille readers to read through all the previous post to get to the latest response. Electronic speech is quite time consuming at the best of times, given that it tends to read all the headers and other garbage which a sighted reader would automatically filter out or skim through. In all cases though, the main thing for both top and bottom posters to follow is the convention of proper snipping or editing posts. If I have to wade through 20 previous posts to get to a one liner at the bottom I've usually given up on the whole thing by then and just mark the poster down as either lazy or too stupid to bother with. Just my twopenneth and I will now go back to lurk mode Regards Prisca -- Put the big cat out to reach me. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
You're right. That extra text added by my AV is rather extraneous and
unnecessarily bulks the message. I've removed it from my settings. Thank you for pointing that out. "Char Jackson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:40:27 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" noEMAILforYOU wrote: Quite the opposite. I consider all time valuable. WHAT is quite the opposite? Opposite of what? (Hang on while I scroll down to see who and what you're replying to.) Ok, I'm back. Thanks for making me scroll down and back up in order to make sense of your post. I've just saved you three seconds by not bottom posting. Hmm, but you cost me a lot more time than that by making me scroll down and back up. What is it you're trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you quite sure this isn't just a case of being too lazy to place your comments where they make contextual sense? Be honest now, when you opened or first viewed this message, what part of the body of this reply did you see first? I saw the answer first, then I scrolled down to see the question, and finally back up to re-read the answer. Thanks, I guess. By the way, NOD32 can be configured to stop announcing that it has checked your post prior to submission. We don't really need to see that. -- Char Jackson -- [Robert] |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On 2/25/2012 3:45 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:40:27 -0500, "Robert Sudbury"noEMAILforYOU wrote: Quite the opposite. I consider all time valuable. WHAT is quite the opposite? Opposite of what? (Hang on while I scroll down to see who and what you're replying to.) Ok, I'm back. Thanks for making me scroll down and back up in order to make sense of your post. I've just saved you three seconds by not bottom posting. Hmm, but you cost me a lot more time than that by making me scroll down and back up. What is it you're trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you quite sure this isn't just a case of being too lazy to place your comments where they make contextual sense? Be honest now, when you opened or first viewed this message, what part of the body of this reply did you see first? I saw the answer first, then I scrolled down to see the question, and finally back up to re-read the answer. Thanks, I guess. By the way, NOD32 can be configured to stop announcing that it has checked your post prior to submission. We don't really need to see that. Why scroll when ctrl+end and ctrl+home are instantainious? -- Zaidy036 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:46:32 -0500, Zaidy036
wrote: On 2/25/2012 3:45 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:40:27 -0500, "Robert Sudbury"noEMAILforYOU wrote: Quite the opposite. I consider all time valuable. WHAT is quite the opposite? Opposite of what? (Hang on while I scroll down to see who and what you're replying to.) Ok, I'm back. Thanks for making me scroll down and back up in order to make sense of your post. I've just saved you three seconds by not bottom posting. Hmm, but you cost me a lot more time than that by making me scroll down and back up. What is it you're trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you quite sure this isn't just a case of being too lazy to place your comments where they make contextual sense? Be honest now, when you opened or first viewed this message, what part of the body of this reply did you see first? Why scroll when ctrl+end and ctrl+home are instantainious? Whether those choices exist for you depends on what newsreader you use. They are *not* all the same. And whether you can scroll quickly using such shortcuts or not, they are still extra steps that aren't necessary if the message isn't top posted. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:12:25 -0500, "Robert Sudbury" noEMAILforYOU wrote:
... you've corrupted the conversation to your own ends by making it appear that I've just either bottom-posted or replied in-line; causing me to appear as a hypocrite. No, I was just replying to your post as you saw it. The section your are referring to should properly read, and I quote: "What I'm attempting to convey in my comment: Top posting is where I'm at, and will stay at. Chances are, when you opened this letter, you recognized that the reply was `right here' ... three seconds and you found your goal. Life is good. 8) ... is that when you opened your reader program, when you selected this message to read, what did you see first? ..." What I read when I( opened my reader program was the first thing you said in reply to something I said, except that you didn't reply to what I said, you simply quoted something you yourself had said, making it *appear* that you were replying, when actually you were not. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
USENET Posting styles (was Making a copy of a DVD)
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:04:06 -0600, sticks wrote:
Robert does not really understand the meaning of "bottom posting." Evidently, he thinks it means your reply goes all the way at the bottom. In reality, it means your words go "below" what you are responding to. And that is precisely the advantage of e-mail and other forms of electronic communication. In a paper letter, if you were replying to a loetter or memo that made several points, you would have to write introductory material to make it clear which point you are replying to. Electronic mail improves on this by making it possible to reply to point seriatim. Top oposting, however, forces one to reply as if one were subject to the contraints of paper mail. This combined with proper snipping makes a thread flow as in conversation. Email, especially business email, is a different animal. I would disagree. Even there top posting is silly, especially if one is replying to a message that makes several points. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|