IPC-2581

[rickman]

On Oct 8, 5:34 am, Oliver Betz <ob...@despammed.com> wrote:

"Brad Velander" wrote:
   Where is the relevance of your references? Who created and voted on
those references?

unimportant. These references IMNSHO don't need to be "external"
justifications. It's up to you to understand the idea and decide
whether to follow.

They are a fools attempt to control and restrict something

nack. They thought about politeness and efficiency.

that in it's inception was intended to be open and unrestricted by people

it's less a question of "restrict" but more of being polite.

I agree that top posting, maybe even with a full quote is _impolite_
to the recipient of a message (because those postings are inefficient
to read).

Since there are many recipients, the sender should spend some work on
the message.

BTW: This includes also proper formatting. I don't like to be pressed
to trim lines when I reply. I ask a new poster _once_ to set his news
client correctly. Next time I simply don't reply even if I could
commit something useful.

This is exactly why I stopped worrying about whether everyone top
posts and trims or not. The incessant reminders have the potential of
turning every thread into an argument over religious beliefs on top/
bottom posting.

CBF, I have to ask, is it really helping?

 

[CBFalconer]

Brad Velander wrote:

.... snip ...

Let me ask, do you bottom post your emails? Now I don't know how
you will answer but I have never seen anybody bottom post an
email. Why not if you think it is so important to forum posts,
what's the difference?

The answer is 'yes'. I like to keep the correspondence
understandable, and properly snipped.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

 

[CBFalconer]

rickman wrote:

.... snip ...

This is exactly why I stopped worrying about whether everyone top
posts and trims or not. The incessant reminders have the
potential of turning every thread into an argument over religious
beliefs on top/ bottom posting.

CBF, I have to ask, is it really helping?

I believe so. I think that newsgroups where I have made noises are
generally in better shape than a random group. Part of the problem
is new users, who just don't know any better. Another part is
silly systems than encourage top-posting.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

 

[Brad Velander]

Well Chuck,
You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. But I
certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with
every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster.
But the post initiating my response is there like a footnote or appendix if
anybody needs such reference/memory assistance.

And I despise bottom posts because I don't want to search for their new
original thoughts/comments through the prior comments and thoughts that I
have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make
most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules so it is not my spot to
critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually being
rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their posting
format.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48ED2026.A0201F7D@yahoo.com...

Brad Velander wrote:

... snip ...

Let me ask, do you bottom post your emails? Now I don't know how
you will answer but I have never seen anybody bottom post an
email. Why not if you think it is so important to forum posts,
what's the difference?

The answer is 'yes'. I like to keep the correspondence
understandable, and properly snipped.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.

 

[Brad Velander]

Chris,
It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was, why
can you not supply any Usenet versions of these documents? Actually exactly
the opposite, Usenet documents explain quite extensively how they are free
and open without restriction and only moderated if the NG is a moderated
group.

No matter how hard you pine, the ARPAnet is not coming back. Join this
century sometime soon.

You're perfect proof of your last statement. The boorish part fits
nicely since you fail to acknowledge the right of unmoderated groups to
free and unrestricted dialogue without interference from others like
yourself who have silly simplistic issues with posting style rather than
content or ideas.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:9JlZEcKubJ7IFAES@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

In message <wgYGk.4136$jf4.2643@newsfe10.iad>, Brad Velander
bveland@SpamThis.com> writes
Chuck,
Where is the relevance of your references? Who created and voted on
those references?

It was the consensus of those who started the NG's Some 20 years ago.

Heaven forbid you would ever subscribe to some of the groups I
monitor,
horrors..., they post using unicode in foreign languages.

If that is what the group agreed than that is fine.

Every now and again we get people who join a particular NG and than want
to ignore the conventions of that group. It is just plain rudeness.

The trouble is when the4 net started there was an entry qualification* nor
they let in anyone and the level of discourse in some groups is akin to a
kindergarten.


*At one time you had to be at least an under grad in a
scientific/computing discipline or at a government (or other) research
site to even know the Internet existed. Now any boorish idiot can get on
.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Chris H]

In message <%AgHk.3926$jX5.2541@newsfe08.iad>, Brad Velander
<bveland@SpamThis.com> writes

Chris,
It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was, why
can you not supply any Usenet versions of these documents?

Because it was 20+ years ago.

Actually exactly
the opposite, Usenet documents explain quite extensively how they are free
and open without restriction and only moderated if the NG is a moderated
group.

Not usually. The charters etc do contain the rules

No matter how hard you pine, the ARPAnet is not coming back. Join this
century sometime soon.

Never been on ARPAnet.

You're perfect proof of your last statement. The boorish part fits
nicely since you fail to acknowledge the right of unmoderated groups to
free and unrestricted dialogue without interference from others like
yourself who have silly simplistic issues with posting style rather than
content or ideas.

Not at all. There is a general social convention of how we all behave
politely. Every now and again some one crashes in and says "I will do it
my way even if those here think it rude".

It is simple manners. Though CBF can get a bit pedantic about it.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Chris H]

In message <DcgHk.1385$JJ4.1132@newsfe06.iad>, Brad Velander
<bveland@SpamThis.com> writes

Well Chuck,
You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails.

It has been the norm in the 50+ NG's I have been on over the last 18
years on line.

Inter-mixed
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content.

I tend to prefer that myself.

But I
certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with
every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster.

I agree, you have to trim posts. The point you need to remember is that
each email needs to stand alone.

have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make
most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules

This is not correct almost every NG has a charter and rules as you will
know, if like me, you have actually created an NG. The few that don't
are some of the original ones from before the great name change. That
was before I came on line 18 years ago.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Paul Carpenter]

In article <DcgHk.1385$JJ4.1132@newsfe06.iad>, bveland@SpamThis.com
says...

Well Chuck,
You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. But I
certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with
every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster.
But the post initiating my response is there like a footnote or appendix if
anybody needs such reference/memory assistance.

And I despise bottom posts because I don't want to search for their new
original thoughts/comments through the prior comments and thoughts that I
have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make
most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules so it is not my spot to
critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually being
rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their posting
format.

Well you will find very small group of people even bothering to read
your posts.

Surprise surprise I will not see any response he ,may make to this.

--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

 

[Michael N. Moran]

Brad Velander wrote:

Well Chuck, You're the first I have ever heard of bottom
posting emails.

Wow ... I feel odd

Bottom posting (with judicious trimming) is just a
special case of intermixing where there is only a single
point of discussion.

Inter-mixed quite possibly and I do it myself for certian
types of emails/content. But I certainly don't need to
read the original posts over and over again with every
reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the
current poster.

Then perhaps you are not holding enough simultaneous e-mail
conversations or have an unusual ability to juggle those
conversations in your head. The problem gets worse when
the subject line diverges from the actual topic of
conversation.



--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
and we never even know we have the key."
"Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles)

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1

 

[rickman]

On Oct 9, 3:36 am, Paul Carpenter <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk>
wrote:

In article <DcgHk.1385$JJ4.1...@newsfe06.iad>, bvel...@SpamThis.com
says...

Well Chuck,
    You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. But I
certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with
every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster.
But the post initiating my response is there like a footnote or appendix if
anybody needs such reference/memory assistance.

And I despise bottom posts because I don't want to search for their new
original thoughts/comments through the prior comments and thoughts that I
have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make
most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules so it is not my spot to
critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually being
rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their posting
format.

Well you will find very small group of people even bothering to read
your posts.

Surprise surprise I will not see any response he ,may make to this.

So who the hell are you talking to???

 

[CBFalconer]

Brad Velander wrote:

It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was,
why can you not supply any Usenet versions of these documents?
Actually exactly the opposite, Usenet documents explain quite
extensively how they are free and open without restriction and
only moderated if the NG is a moderated group.

Well, since you refuse to accept the standards and continue to
top-post, I refuse to accept them. PLONK. Enjoy.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

 

[Paul Carpenter]

In article <84e69a4b-056e-4cfa-b3bc-
76f26550193d@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, gnuarm@gmail.com says...

On Oct 9, 3:36 am, Paul Carpenter <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
wrote:
In article <DcgHk.1385$JJ4.1...@newsfe06.iad>, bvel...@SpamThis.com
says...

Well Chuck,
    You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content.. But I
......
critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually being
rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their posting
format.

Well you will find very small group of people even bothering to read
your posts.

Surprise surprise I will not see any response he ,may make to this.

So who the hell are you talking to???

I have just ascended something, what are they called?

Nurse who is this strange man making noises?

--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

 

[Oliver Betz]

"Brad Velander" wrote:

Well Chuck,
You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. But I
certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with

could it be that your mean "full quote"?

Then you didn't read Chuck's mail correctly. He trimmed the quoted
text.

Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Munich
despammed.com might be broken, use Reply-To:

 

[rickman]

I have to say I am glad that is over...

On Oct 9, 10:30 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brad Velander wrote:

It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was,
why can you not supply any Usenet versions of these documents?
Actually exactly the opposite, Usenet documents explain quite
extensively how they are free and open without restriction and
only moderated if the NG is a moderated group.

Well, since you refuse to accept the standards and continue to
top-post, I refuse to accept them.  PLONK.  Enjoy.