MessageView 421F schematic

[Fred Abse]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:57:56 +0000, Rick wrote:

Can anyone help me repair an old Gould OS260 oscilloscope?

Really, I need a circuit diagram or service manual. This is the first
'scope I have tried to repair, I could really do with a second one so
please help me get it going

The trace will not focus, in XY mode the 'dot' is about 5mm square!
The focus control has no effect, neither does the internal focus
preset or any other control. Everything seems to work fine other than
the bad focus problem, which persists on every setting.

I haven't replaced any electrolytic capacitors yet, most of them
(4.7uF 500V) read from 4 to 6 ohms ESR - not sure if this is really
bad or not.

Could it be a gassy tube? I hope not :-(

Any suggestions gratefully accepted - can anyone give me a hint of
where to look for this problem?

One final query - there are four cement-coated resistors that are in
line with some of the leads going to the tube. These are too hot to
touch without some pain - is this normal?

Have you measured the negative EHT voltage at the CRT cathode (Don't use
an ordinary meter, it should be about 2 to 3 kV!) Use a high voltage meter
or properly designed probe.

Does it have an astigmatism control? If so have you tried that?

Some Gould 'scopes I have crossed swords with, supply the CRT heater from
the mains transformer. That's a poor idea, the transformer insulation has
to cope with several kV, and *does* break down, pulling the EHT down with
it. Very common where the instrument has been brought back into service
after long storage without desiccant. The square spot (plate shadow) seems
to indicate you're short on EHT, is the brightness poor, too?

The cure for the above is: fit a separate heater transformer.

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Bob Stephens]

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Flame away!

Bob

"Rich Grise" <spamdump@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gs6nb.3931$RQ1.1997@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

[crosspost restored, and top posted because, of course, my
response is more important than the question. ;-) ]

Personally, I think of it as conceptuallly similar to
"casting a wide net." If there are people who have a
small subset of favorite groups, there's a (possibly)
better chance of someone who has an answer will read
the question. Or at least the header. ;-)

Shall we start another flame fest? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Michael Black wrote:

Rich Grise (spamdump@aol.com) writes:

Please don't get all offended by a gentle netiquette reminder.
Crossposting is better, and actually, in answer to your kind
of snotty response here, we _ARE_ worrying about our bandwidth.
That's the bandwidth that your crosspost uses.

Plus, crossposting is better, because whenever anyone responds
to a crosspost, it appears in all the NGs simultaneously,
increasing your chances of getting a response, and making
it easier to catch any responses.


I agree that it's better to cross-post than post to a number of
newsgroups separately. The responses won't be redundant, and
everyone will be working together rather than separately.

But, most of the time one can find one newsgroup that is most
appropriate for a post, and do without any cross- or multiple-posting.
Cross-posting is usually the mark of someone who can't be bothered to
find the
best newsgroup, someone who doesn't care, or someone so full of
themselves
that they think everyone wants to read their message.

So it's best to post to a a single newsgroup.

And only if there is a good reason, then cross-post rather than
multiple-post.

Michael

 

[Stephen H. Westin]

"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Editing your quotes?

It's really helpful only to quote the part to which you're responding, with
perhaps enough else to give some context.

Reading an exchange backwards is even more painful; to have to scroll down
to find the context, then back up to reread the comment.

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Flame away!

Bob

1: People who top post tend to leave all the old crap in the message,
instead of snipping out irrelevant text, and only replying to what is
important. That leads to messages that are hundreds of lines of dead
text, lead with a one line message. Read through, clip out the crap, and
post your answer where it makes sense.

2: Would you read a book that was printed out of sequence, while
trying to figure out the order by counting the number of arrows at the
start of each line?

3: By being lazy and top posting in a continuing thread, you force
everyone who reads it to put it in context. By bottom posting, or
posting between existing paragraphs in a long message, it takes less
time to read a new message.

4: A lot of people skip a message that is top posted, and after a
while, they kill file those who go against the flow, rather than waste
time sorting out their messes.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.

Question: Why is top posting bad?


Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d
exit X Q ^C ^? :quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H man vi ^@ ^L ^[c ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help helpquit ^D
man quit ^C ^c ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."

 

[Bob Stephens]

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:3FAA8022.9321B9B5@Hovnanian.com...

Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.

Question: Why is top posting bad?


Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

 

[Stephen H. Westin]

"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

OK, then start your top post with a summary of all that you're
replying to. Which you didn't; someone coming in the middle of this
discussion has to scroll down and decode things in reverse order.

It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:3FAA8022.9321B9B5@Hovnanian.com...
Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.

Question: Why is top posting bad?


Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

 

[Baphomet]

"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Uowqb.376$nz.156@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the
option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

Beside all of the great responses to your question, we normally read from
top to bottom. It makes reading a lengthy a complex thread more
understandable, especially for someone jumping in at the middle of a
discussion. When I reply to an e-mail (as opposed to usenet) I top post
because it tends to stand out better and there is seldom a lengthy thread to
follow.

snip...snip...snip...

 

[Bob Stephens]

OK, then start your top post with a summary of all that you're
replying to. Which you didn't; someone coming in the middle of this
discussion has to scroll down and decode things in reverse order.

OK . There you go. I didn't top post. Thank you all for your informed
responses, but I must respectfully totally disagree.



"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:uad79l4e6.fsf@graphics.cornell.edu...

"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the
option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:3FAA8022.9321B9B5@Hovnanian.com...
Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long
threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.

Question: Why is top posting bad?


Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

 

[Ed Price]

"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Uowqb.376$nz.156@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the
option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

IF your comments could be stretched to be the equivalent of an "executive
summary." And this is an example which you clearly didn't follow. Re-read
your comments; where is the executive summary? I only see your opinions.

A fair response will include an edited version of the original post. True,
this requires a little effort, but it commands more respect for your reply.

Finally, I find that a top-post has a rude feeling; to me, it says that "my
comments are much more important than any previous points, and that my
position outweighs any concept of sequence." It also says "I'm too important
to properly edit the discussion, so here's what I have to say, and if you
need more than what I say, go find it yourself."

True, you may be weird.


Ed

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 06 Nov 2003, Bob Stephens wrote

Re: the ol' top-posting thingie...

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the
top is sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a
thumbnail preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall
Street Journal. It can be scanned immediately for pertinence,
leaving the reader the option of tunneling down deeper into the
preliminaries or pushing on.

That works if you've been following a thread post-by-post as it
develops, and can keep on top of what was said last time and the time
before that.

If you've ever tried opening a thread for the first time that's got a
little long, I'm sure you'll agree it's a PITA to try and decipher who
is saying what in reponse to which posting.

Usenet posts are an open thing, not a private conversation, and it's
polite to be considerate of those who have just joined a thread.
Assuming it's a two-way conversation between previous poster and new
message doesn't take that into aaccount.

Snipping and putting the back-posts in the order of "He said", "to
which he replied", "to which she interjected", "to which he said" gives
a more normal sequence of what was said than does putting everything in
reverse order.

"Who's there? Knock, knock" is an odd sequence to read.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.

 

[Charles R. Tenney]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:46:43 GMT "Bob Stephens"
<stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in Message id:
<7jzqb.395$6c3.313@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

OK, then start your top post with a summary of all that you're
replying to. Which you didn't; someone coming in the middle of this
discussion has to scroll down and decode things in reverse order.


OK . There you go. I didn't top post. Thank you all for your informed
responses, but I must respectfully totally disagree.

You're wrong; and you need to learn to snip what you're not replying to.
See the mess you've left below?

(Left unsnipped to make a point):

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:uad79l4e6.fsf@graphics.cornell.edu...
"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the
option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:3FAA8022.9321B9B5@Hovnanian.com...
Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long
threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.

Question: Why is top posting bad?


Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

 

[Charles R. Tenney]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:09:03 GMT "Bob Stephens"
<stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in Message id:
<zmuqb.166$6c3.17@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Flame away!

You asked for it. I posted this yesterday in another newsgroup in response
to the same question:

Instead of trimming the previous post down to only the relevant parts, you
intend to dribble forth a bloated top-posted article that includes each
previous article in its entirety.

We're talking about custom here, not morality. But just as an exercise,
let's try applying the universal law formulation of Kant's categorical
imperative to your actions. It this is too complicated for you, refer to
the children's book _If Everybody Did_, by Jo Ann Stover.

If everybody top-posted, including entire previous articles, each article
would include the entirety of the thread to date, along the particular
route taken to that article. The fiftieth article in a thread would
contain 49 previous articles. A linear thread, with no branches, would
expand in storage size (in megabytes) as one-half the square of the number
of articles, so that a thread of 100 articles would require storage space
for 5,000. The actual expansion would be less because of branching, but
don't forget that threads can go on for more than 100 articles.

News spools would fill up and crash, articles would disappear before they
appeared, and new threads would be choked off. Those who still download
articles over a phone line would be unable to download these articles,
with their vanishingly-small fraction of new, unduplicated content, as fast
as they appeared, if they appeared at all. Usenet would cease to function
with its current carrying capacity. Consequently, a rational being would
not want a top-posting, all-inclusive posting style to become a universal
norm. The very existence of threaded newsreaders and the availability of
past articles on news spools indicates that such a scheme has been weighed
in the balance and found wanting.

When you start at the top, you should start trimming text until you come to
something relevant that you wish to address, reply to, or expand on. Then
move your cursor below that, text, hit "enter" to leave a blank line, then
start typing. Leave blank lines between paragraphs, and after your text
before you (delete irrelevant material and) include another point to be
addressed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is what we find most readable. For you to tell us that we should
alter our reading habits to suit your posting style (presumably, to be
bopping back and forth between new and included old text) is just plain
rude.

You are welcome to your opinions as to what is efficient in posting, but
you are not welcome to act on them here, and you are especially not welcome
to pretend that your opinions are as good as anyone else's. You think of
yourself as an individualist, standing up for your opinions in the face of
the stodgy old fuddy-duddies that infest this group. You may even feel
that your way of thinking will provide a breath of fresh air for those who
choose to inhale it. But what you're really doing is farting on the
elevator and haughtily informing the other passengers that you're free to
do so, that you intend to laugh at their expressions of distaste, and that
they really ought to be enjoying your contributions anyway.

What you have failed to realize it that you have stumbled into a community,
and that communities have standards and traditions. These don't have to
make sense to you, but you do have to be aware that you, having no standing
in the community, are unlikely to drop in and change these traditions
instantly because it suits you to do so. You are free to tell us that you
want to top-post and fail to trim your followups. You are free to go to
an Orthodox synagogue and tell the worshippers coming out of a service
that they really should be following Jeezus and enjoying a nice slice of
Easter ham. You are free to partake of a traditional meal in an Arab
country and eat from the common food bowl with your left hand (the
traditional butt-wiping hand) and brush off any polite hints or
instructions to the contrary. You are free to go to Paris, Munich, Tokyo,
Madrid, or Rome and accost random locals in English, making no attempt to
speak even a broken version of their own language, but instead affecting an
attitude that makes it clear that you think it their duty to undertake
years of language study so that they may assist you with no undue
inconvenience to yourself.

In all of these, you would have the same effect: you would mark yourself
as an ignorant, selfish, self-absorbed boor who thinks that everyone,
everywhere should adapt themselves to suit your own childish whims. You
see, we care to a finite extent about top-posting. But some people care a
great deal more about dispensing with morons who have neither the common
sense nor the common courtesy to fit in with local custom, and top-posting
provides a convenient moron detector. The custom itself is of minor
importance, but, dispensing with morons is both a critical activity and a
pleasant diversion.

HTH.

 

[Stephen H. Westin]

"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

OK, then start your top post with a summary of all that you're
replying to. Which you didn't; someone coming in the middle of this
discussion has to scroll down and decode things in reverse order.


OK . There you go. I didn't top post.

OK, then explain what you mean by "top post". I thought it meant that
you put your reply at the top of the article: i.e. before all
quotes. That's what I see below, and in the message to which I'm
replying.

Thank you all for your informed
responses, but I must respectfully totally disagree.

Hmm. Is forming your communications in a way that "disagrees" with
your audience an effective way to get your ideas across? I haven't
seen folks step up to defend top-posting.

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:uad79l4e6.fsf@graphics.cornell.edu...
"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the
option
of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.

Bob

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:3FAA8022.9321B9B5@Hovnanian.com...
Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long
threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.

Question: Why is top posting bad?


Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

 

[Bob Stephens]

Hmmm...

I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the
top is sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a
thumbnail preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall
Street Journal. It can be scanned immediately for pertinence,
leaving the reader the option of tunneling down deeper into the
preliminaries or pushing on.

That works if you've been following a thread post-by-post as it
develops, and can keep on top of what was said last time and the time
before that.

If you've ever tried opening a thread for the first time that's got a
little long, I'm sure you'll agree it's a PITA to try and decipher who
is saying what in reponse to which posting.

Fair enough. In fact my original question was referring to long thread by
thread posts where all the baggage was propagated through each message.

Usenet posts are an open thing, not a private conversation, and it's
polite to be considerate of those who have just joined a thread.
Assuming it's a two-way conversation between previous poster and new
message doesn't take that into aaccount.

Agreed. I still think IMHO that there are situations where top posting,
bottom posting, and intermittent comment interjection (like this) are all
valid means of communicating without being rude.

Snipping and putting the back-posts in the order of "He said", "to
which he replied", "to which she interjected", "to which he said" gives
a more normal sequence of what was said than does putting everything in
reverse order.

"Who's there? Knock, knock" is an odd sequence to read.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.

By the way, just to clear the air. My original question was just that - a
question. I was curious as to why people felt so strongly that the bottom
posting convention was the only acceptable
means of responding on USENET. One person here, who apparently is wrapped
WAY to tightly, accused me of boorish, rude behaviour and forcing my point
of view on everyone else...
nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, I inadvertently
deleted his post before I could respond. Anyway, thanks for all the info.
Pretty interesting how passionate some of the
responses were to what I considered an idle curiosity...

Bob S

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 07 Nov 2003, Bob Stephens wrote

-snip-

By the way, just to clear the air. My original question was just
that - a question. I was curious as to why people felt so strongly
that the bottom posting convention was the only acceptable
means of responding on USENET.

Agreed -- I'd extend that curiousity to the amazing degree to which so
many people seem to view *everything* in violent extremes: top/bottom
posting, Linux/MS, XNews/OE and the rest of it.

Some posters seem to get stroke-inducingly partisan about these issues:
it's as if one's whole moral character is supposed to be wrapped up in
the choice of some negligible piece of software (or a nice-but-not-
earth-shatteringly-critical bit of netiquette).

There are definitely some clinically weird folks out there.....

--
Cheers,
Harvey

For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.

 

[Bob Stephens]

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Flame away!

N.B. This is my original post in its entirety. Pretty inflammatory stuff,

yes?

<snip>
.. It this is too complicated for you, refer to

the children's book _If Everybody Did_, by Jo Ann Stover.

IMHO rude and uncalled for

<snip>

. For you to tell us that we should
alter our reading habits to suit your posting style (presumably, to be
bopping back and forth between new and included old text) is just plain
rude.

Please identify where told anyone to do anything in my post. I must have
missed something
<mini snip>

, and you are especially not welcome
to pretend that your opinions are as good as anyone else's.

indeed?

You think of

yourself as an individualist, standing up for your opinions in the face of
the stodgy old fuddy-duddies that infest this group. You may even feel
that your way of thinking will provide a breath of fresh air for those who
choose to inhale it. But what you're really doing is farting on the
elevator and haughtily informing the other passengers that you're free to
do so, that you intend to laugh at their expressions of distaste, and that
they really ought to be enjoying your contributions anyway.

I did all that in 4 lines of text? Pretty efficient data transfer for a top
poster!
<snip>

but you do have to be aware that you, having no standing
in the community

How do you percieve your own standing in the community?

<snip- o- la>

You are free to
You are free to
You are free to
You are free to
Very gracious of you, I'm sure

<snip>

In all of these, you would have the same effect: you would mark yourself
as an ignorant, selfish, self-absorbed boor who thinks that everyone,
everywhere should adapt themselves to suit your own childish whims.

you know, I really don't see myself that way at all. And to reiterate a
previous point, I haven't asked anyone to adapt to anything

<snip>

You
see, we care to a finite extent about top-posting.

Some more than others obviously.... Do you number your socks? And is this
the royal "we" or have you polled the opinions of the community at large?

But some people care a
great deal more about dispensing with morons who have neither the common
sense nor the common courtesy to fit in with local custom, and top-posting
provides a convenient moron detector. The custom itself is of minor
importance, but, dispensing with morons is both a critical activity and a
pleasant diversion.

Two words: Jack Kervorkian

(you really need to get out more)

HTH.

 

[Frogleg]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:09:03 GMT, "Bob Stephens"
<stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

A: Because top posting doesn't make sense.
Q: Why bottom post?

(Stolen from someone else)

 

[Frogleg]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:08:50 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Bob Stephens wrote:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.
Question: Why is top posting bad?

Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
in-line.
summarize the points to which you are responding in your
own post.

Perzactly. It doesn't take long to at least trim the fat, and still
include the sense of the thread. Will all those who post a "I agree"
with *no* quoted material please drink poison and die? Similiarly,
those who quote a 200-line thread and add "Right on!" I see lots of
posts with which I agree (or not), but don't see much point in
mentioning it unless I can, IMHO, add something to the discussion.

 

[JM]

quoting:

Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll through
the same initial post and all previous responses
for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?

Flame away!

Why the f*** is this x posted here??? Please take this to alt.flame .