Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
---Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Exactly; and it only makes sense on bottom.One should post where it makes most sense. Ignore the bean counters.
...........
Baphomet posted:
Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Exactly; and it only makes sense on bottom.One should post where it makes most sense. Ignore the bean counters.
...........
Baphomet posted:
Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
But the problem I see is that the quotes, the origional of which everyone
has
already read, get so long that a brief reply is best at the top.
Don
jjlarkin posted:
On 23 Sep 2003 15:11:08 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:
One should post where it makes most sense. Ignore the bean counters.
...........
Baphomet posted:
Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or
above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Exactly; and it only makes sense on bottom.
Underneath. That way, readers of the thread can see the entireIs it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Top posting is most appropriate for a single response to a question,Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
No it dosent. What you talking about?This is precisely why it makes sense to top-post.
pdq wrote:
This is precisely why it makes sense to top-post.
No it dosent. What you talking about?
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
I'd say it depends on what it is that you wantBaphomet wrote:
Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Well, sometimes.Top posting is most appropriate for a single response to a question,
as when replying to an email.
Agreed. Then again, sometimes it's acceptable toHere, where answers trigger additional questions, comments and
corrections by any number of people, and the result gets archived, the
conversation is easier to understand if you post your text directly
below the thing you are reacting to. The quote markings at the
beginning of each line keep track of who said what, and this feature
should be turned on in the news reader you are using. The google
archive will automatically color code test by who said what if the
quote marks are used, consistently.
That appears to be just too much work for some folks.It is also a good idea to trim (with a 'snip' or 8< ) indication, any
text that you are not responding to, as a reminder to readers that you
have edited the original post.
Some don't have the patience or diligence to do so. ScrewThey can always go back one layer in
the archive of the thread to find out what else was said.
---But the problem I see is that the quotes, the origional of which everyone has
already read, get so long that a brief reply is best at the top.
Don
Ho humm... About the poorest excuse I have read. Replies are usuallyThose that are following the thread can read the latest post at a
glance. They don't have to scroll to the bottom to read it.
--"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tt_bb.796$Yy4.228@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
pdq wrote:
This is precisely why it makes sense to top-post.
No it dosent. What you talking about?
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
I much prefer to read bottom posted responses. ButIs it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
So far I've seen no mention of this equally important note on this,Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or
above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
Underneath. That way, readers of the thread can see the entire
context of the post.
Ho humm... About the poorest excuse I have read. Replies are usuallyThose that are following the thread can read the latest post at a
glance. They don't have to scroll to the bottom to read it.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:24:11 -0700, "Baphomet"
fandanospam@catskill.net> wrote:
Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?
---
snipped.........
Who wudda thunk it. Thanks for all of the great responses.Is it considered proper to reply to a newsgroup post underneath or above
the orignal? If proper is the wrong terminology, which method is more
readily understandable?