Newsgroup Netiquette

[Steve]

The real problem arises when people completely neglect to edit the
quoted text, and then they bottom post. This forces you to download a
whole lot more data than you need to, plus you have to scroll through
pages of text you've already read just to see the new comments!

Unless you are specifically replying to a particular comment, there's
no need to include the quote. For instance, I am addressing the
general topic and not specific comments, hence there's no wasted space
taken up with excess quotes.

If people would just do some simple editing, the experience of reading
newsgroups via google groups would be a whole lot less frustrating.

nifty

 

[Steve]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<c1t0nv4dqvemvdd5pjpaakdspjt3mfn3lg@4ax.com>...

Selective snipping takes care of that.

but the problem is that very few people do a good job of editing
quotes from their reply.

nifty

 

[John Fields]

On 23 Sep 2003 16:47:44 -0700, niftydog@hotmail.com (Steve) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<c1t0nv4dqvemvdd5pjpaakdspjt3mfn3lg@4ax.com>...

Selective snipping takes care of that.


but the problem is that very few people do a good job of editing
quotes from their reply.

---
And there's no way you're going to solve the problem by whining about
it. Just take your own advice and set a good example.


--
John Fields

 

[JeffM]

John Fields says pretty much the same thing later in this thread.

I was already thinking about starting a new thread on this, but here
goes.

Most folks who post to newsgroups have never seen a set of rules
(and many others generally choose to ignore them when displayed).
http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cachex5j4dSLfP0J:homepages.rootsweb.com/~scroots/sc09773.htm+%22Don%27t+quote+excessively%22++Netiquette+%22Steven+J.+Coker%22+uppercase+quoting&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:XKQH9mPJtiEJ:mailman.dca.net/pipermail/idyllchat/2002-September/008799.html+Idyllchat+quoting+Netiquette+sep+%22all+caps%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
Those who use a BBS (bulletin board system)
http://www.dotcomjunkies.com/members/m/MP_Tech_Resource/forum/ have
seen the proper technique.

The big problem is that newsreader software, as a convenience to its
user,
blockquotes the whole damned previous post.
It doesn't take into account fools who don't know enough
to edit the blockquote to the minimal snip
(often the new post doesn't need ANY snip

Re-storing all this text 42 times and re-transmitting it 42,000 times
takes up resources.


....and don't get me started on idiots WHO POST IN ALL CAPS.

 

[dave]

Yep, I'm with you on this one, I don't want to scroll through stuff
I've already read - I just want the answers!
Top posters rule. ;-)


"pdq" <pdq@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f7074c9$0$52161$a0465688@nnrp.fuse.net>...

Those 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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

dave wrote:

"pdq" <pdq@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3f7074c9$0$52161$a0465688@nnrp.fuse.net>...
Those 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?

Yep, I'm with you on this one, I don't want to scroll through stuff
I've already read - I just want the answers!
Top posters rule. ;-)

Nope. There is *no* excuse for top posting. It's as plain as day. Those
that don't see the sense, need to take a remedial English class.

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.

 

[John G]

When you had paper files did you put he latest corresponace at the back?

No I do not thing so.

I rest my case.
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BGbcb.46$zF1.27@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

dave wrote:



"pdq" <pdq@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3f7074c9$0$52161$a0465688@nnrp.fuse.net>...
Those 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?

Yep, I'm with you on this one, I don't want to scroll through stuff
I've already read - I just want the answers!
Top posters rule. ;-)

Nope. There is *no* excuse for top posting. It's as plain as day. Those
that don't see the sense, need to take a remedial English class.

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.

 

[pdq]

amen


"John G" <greentestatoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f718983$0$13656$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

When you had paper files did you put he latest corresponace at the back?

No I do not thing so.

I rest my case.
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BGbcb.46$zF1.27@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
dave wrote:



"pdq" <pdq@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3f7074c9$0$52161$a0465688@nnrp.fuse.net>...
Those 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?

Yep, I'm with you on this one, I don't want to scroll through stuff
I've already read - I just want the answers!
Top posters rule. ;-)

Nope. There is *no* excuse for top posting. It's as plain as day. Those
that don't see the sense, need to take a remedial English class.

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.

 

[Bob Masta]

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?

I always bottom-post or inter-post on Newsgroups,
and typically top-post or inter-post on Email. But
one issue that other respondents haven't addressed
here is those who must read their messages with a
speech synthesizer, such as blind people. I have
corresponded with some via Email, and as you can
imagine they _much_ prefer top-posting so they
don't have to listen to their own original message
all over again. My guess would be that blind users
on Usenet would rather see top-posts as well.

The simple solution, I think, would be if their
"readers" had an option to skip over the old
text that is denoted by > symbols. Then they
could use bottom-posts as well as top. But
from my limited experience, this might take a
while to be implemented: Many of these folks
are using old DOS software, since Windows is
usually pretty inept at dealing with their needs.
I don't doubt that a good Windows app could be
written, but it would take a lot of work for a really
small (and often low-income) market.

Just my 2 cents worth...


Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John G wrote:

I rest my case.
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BGbcb.46$zF1.27@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
dave wrote:



"pdq" <pdq@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3f7074c9$0$52161$a0465688@nnrp.fuse.net>...
Those 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?

Yep, I'm with you on this one, I don't want to scroll through stuff
I've already read - I just want the answers!
Top posters rule. ;-)

Nope. There is *no* excuse for top posting. It's as plain as day.
Those that don't see the sense, need to take a remedial English
class.
When you had paper files did you put he latest corresponace at the
back?

No I do not thing so.

So what. Irrelevant argument. It has nothing whatsoever to to with the
reading flow in a single document. Even with this post, you comment made
no sense at all untill it was reconstructed into its proper context. I
have read may other posts between these posts. I'm not about to keep in
my mental forefront all the other bloody post plus yours just because
you are unable to follow a minimum of elementary conventions.

Any fool can read the above and understnd why top posting is daft, even
for simple bits of text.

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.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:09:37 +1000, "John G"
<greentestatoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

When you had paper files did you put he latest corresponace at the back?

No I do not thing so.

I rest my case.

---
When you watch a movie do you watch it backwards?

These are not paper files, your argument is nonsensical, and you need to
rest your case against a wall somewhere, since it certainly can't
support itself.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:40:20 GMT, no_spam@aol.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

I always bottom-post or inter-post on Newsgroups,
and typically top-post or inter-post on Email. But
one issue that other respondents haven't addressed
here is those who must read their messages with a
speech synthesizer, such as blind people. I have
corresponded with some via Email, and as you can
imagine they _much_ prefer top-posting so they
don't have to listen to their own original message
all over again. My guess would be that blind users
on Usenet would rather see top-posts as well.

The simple solution, I think, would be if their
"readers" had an option to skip over the old
text that is denoted by > symbols. Then they
could use bottom-posts as well as top. But
from my limited experience, this might take a
while to be implemented: Many of these folks
are using old DOS software, since Windows is
usually pretty inept at dealing with their needs.
I don't doubt that a good Windows app could be
written, but it would take a lot of work for a really
small (and often low-income) market.

---
Perhaps an easy solution would be for the blind person to include
something like, "Please top post, I am blind." in their dotsig?

I'd certainly acceed to their request.

--
John Fields

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <ven0nvs4nl58m5sf9tf3m0p93vget9dq2o@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com mentioned...

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?

---
It is only proper to bottom post as I am doing now. There are no
exceptions, and you may notice that top posters are invariably
knuckle-draggers with severe social problems.

But unfortunately some software defaults to the top post. One I know
of is Outhouse - er, Outlook.

And of course it's hard to stick to Netiquette when the rest of the
world is going to hell in a handbasket, with all the spammers,
scammers, and trolls.

Something about draining swamps and alligators goes here..

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:54:54 -0700, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
<alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <ven0nvs4nl58m5sf9tf3m0p93vget9dq2o@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com mentioned...
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?

---
It is only proper to bottom post as I am doing now. There are no
exceptions, and you may notice that top posters are invariably
knuckle-draggers with severe social problems.

But unfortunately some software defaults to the top post. One I know
of is Outhouse - er, Outlook.

---
Which more or less extends my definition of knuckle-draggers to include
the authors of OE.
---

And of course it's hard to stick to Netiquette when the rest of the
world is going to hell in a handbasket, with all the spammers,
scammers, and trolls.

---
Proper is proper, regardless of the environment in which it's forced to
survive. How's that for pontificating?-) Actually, I was being a
little tongue-in-cheek, since there are occasions where top posting is
OK, I guess, but yeah, the way a lot of people post is abdominal.
---

Something about draining swamps and alligators goes here..

---
I'm not familiar with that one, how does it go?


--
John Fields

 

[Peter Bennett]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:54:54 -0700, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
<alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <ven0nvs4nl58m5sf9tf3m0p93vget9dq2o@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com mentioned...

But unfortunately some software defaults to the top post. One I know
of is Outhouse - er, Outlook.

And of course it's hard to stick to Netiquette when the rest of the
world is going to hell in a handbasket, with all the spammers,
scammers, and trolls.

Yes - when you reply, OE places the cursor at the top of the quoted
message, so you can add your comments there.

Conversely, Agent places the cursor at the top of the quoted message,
so you can easily read through the quoted message, deleting as
appropriate, and adding your own comments within or below the quoted
material.




--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

 

[The Captain]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<6on5nvk4l0aaektb2htp1tn1pvmf1ej98o@4ax.com>...

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:40:20 GMT, no_spam@aol.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

I always bottom-post or inter-post on Newsgroups,
and typically top-post or inter-post on Email. But
one issue that other respondents haven't addressed
here is those who must read their messages with a
speech synthesizer, such as blind people. I have
corresponded with some via Email, and as you can
imagine they _much_ prefer top-posting so they
don't have to listen to their own original message
all over again. My guess would be that blind users
on Usenet would rather see top-posts as well.

The simple solution, I think, would be if their
"readers" had an option to skip over the old
text that is denoted by > symbols. Then they
could use bottom-posts as well as top. But
from my limited experience, this might take a
while to be implemented: Many of these folks
are using old DOS software, since Windows is
usually pretty inept at dealing with their needs.
I don't doubt that a good Windows app could be
written, but it would take a lot of work for a really
small (and often low-income) market.

---
Perhaps an easy solution would be for the blind person to include
something like, "Please top post, I am blind." in their dotsig?

I'd certainly acceed to their request.

It strikes me that for the majority of posts bottom posting is more
convenient for the reader. Not everyone reading a thread will have
been invloved from the outset and to be able to follow the thread in a
normal, for most languages, top to bottom direction makes it much
easier to make sense (assuming such sense exists!) of the thread.

However, when tempers fray and personalities enter the picture, as
they too often do, inter-posting seems to creep in, which, while
frequently entertaining, tends to be a bit confusing.

Top posting, except in exceptional circumstances such as the one
mentioned above, and which, I must admit, is one of which I had never
thought, tend to break up the flow of conversation and information.
Perhaps an explanation, such as "I'm top posting because - - - "
which could involve just about anything. Mind you, the first reason
that leaps to mind would be "Because I think the whole following
thread is a load of old monkey dung!" After all, if you're going to
throw a cat among the pigeons, why not be blatant about it!!

When I first started posting, I tended to top post, because that
seemed the place where most people would notice my post. I was
quickly and, I must say, pleasantly, informed of my error. Most top
posters are newbies, so a quiet word and explanation as to why bottom
posting is preferred would be more helpful than derision and insults.

Which leads me to a further point.

The internet generally provides for the free and open exchange of
ideas, as are newsgroups. This board is to allow those beginning in
electronics to ask questions of those who have been in the field a
little longer. Some of those questions will be naive and some will be
thoughtless. However, while it is sometimes tempting to answer with
sarcasm or invective, it does't help the questioner and it does
nothing for the reputation of the respondent. If the question is
either naive or thoughtless, the questioner can be so informed without
calling his or her ancestry into question.

Further, you may not agree with some of the opinions or answers given.
This is only natural; if we all agreed with each other all the time
we'd be as boring as accountants. But to swear at and insult each
other is just plain immature and undisciplined. And it certainly
doesn't encourage those who come here looking for help and guidance to
return.

I don't want to sound as though I'm preaching, but some of the entries
I've read recently make me wonder about the ages of the posters. I've
only been posting to this group for a while, but I try to apply the
same rules to postings that I would to business meetings I chair - If
you can't say what you want to say politely and without swearing,
you're not achieving anything.

Now I just know I'm at least going to get flamed by an accountant!!


John

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"The Captain" <Captain794@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:7199d521.0309271354.3b8d7ced@posting.google.com...

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:<6on5nvk4l0aaektb2htp1tn1pvmf1ej98o@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:40:20 GMT, no_spam@aol.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

I always bottom-post or inter-post on Newsgroups,
and typically top-post or inter-post on Email. But
one issue that other respondents haven't addressed
here is those who must read their messages with a
speech synthesizer, such as blind people. I have
corresponded with some via Email, and as you can
imagine they _much_ prefer top-posting so they
don't have to listen to their own original message
all over again. My guess would be that blind users
on Usenet would rather see top-posts as well.

The simple solution, I think, would be if their
"readers" had an option to skip over the old
text that is denoted by > symbols. Then they
could use bottom-posts as well as top. But
from my limited experience, this might take a
while to be implemented: Many of these folks
are using old DOS software, since Windows is
usually pretty inept at dealing with their needs.
I don't doubt that a good Windows app could be
written, but it would take a lot of work for a really
small (and often low-income) market.

---
Perhaps an easy solution would be for the blind person to include
something like, "Please top post, I am blind." in their dotsig?

I'd certainly acceed to their request.

It strikes me that for the majority of posts bottom posting is more
convenient for the reader. Not everyone reading a thread will have
been invloved from the outset and to be able to follow the thread in a
normal, for most languages, top to bottom direction makes it much
easier to make sense (assuming such sense exists!) of the thread.

However, when tempers fray and personalities enter the picture, as
they too often do, inter-posting seems to creep in, which, while
frequently entertaining, tends to be a bit confusing.

Top posting, except in exceptional circumstances such as the one
mentioned above, and which, I must admit, is one of which I had never
thought, tend to break up the flow of conversation and information.
Perhaps an explanation, such as "I'm top posting because - - - "
which could involve just about anything. Mind you, the first reason
that leaps to mind would be "Because I think the whole following
thread is a load of old monkey dung!" After all, if you're going to
throw a cat among the pigeons, why not be blatant about it!!

When I first started posting, I tended to top post, because that
seemed the place where most people would notice my post. I was
quickly and, I must say, pleasantly, informed of my error. Most top
posters are newbies, so a quiet word and explanation as to why bottom
posting is preferred would be more helpful than derision and insults.

Which leads me to a further point.

The internet generally provides for the free and open exchange of
ideas, as are newsgroups. This board is to allow those beginning in
electronics to ask questions of those who have been in the field a
little longer. Some of those questions will be naive and some will be
thoughtless. However, while it is sometimes tempting to answer with
sarcasm or invective, it does't help the questioner and it does
nothing for the reputation of the respondent. If the question is
either naive or thoughtless, the questioner can be so informed without
calling his or her ancestry into question.

Further, you may not agree with some of the opinions or answers given.
This is only natural; if we all agreed with each other all the time
we'd be as boring as accountants. But to swear at and insult each
other is just plain immature and undisciplined. And it certainly
doesn't encourage those who come here looking for help and guidance to
return.

I don't want to sound as though I'm preaching, but some of the entries
I've read recently make me wonder about the ages of the posters. I've
only been posting to this group for a while, but I try to apply the
same rules to postings that I would to business meetings I chair - If
you can't say what you want to say politely and without swearing,
you're not achieving anything.

Now I just know I'm at least going to get flamed by an accountant!!


John

John,

I agree, but BTW are you a missionary?

pieter

Change p. to piet to find the correct e-mail address.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.519 / Virus Database: 317 - Release Date: 17-9-2003

 

[John Fortier]

"petrus bitbyter" <p.kralt@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:znAdb.291044$P03.59243635@amsnews02.chello.com...

"The Captain" <Captain794@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:7199d521.0309271354.3b8d7ced@posting.google.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:<6on5nvk4l0aaektb2htp1tn1pvmf1ej98o@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:40:20 GMT, no_spam@aol.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

I always bottom-post or inter-post on Newsgroups,
and typically top-post or inter-post on Email. But
one issue that other respondents haven't addressed
here is those who must read their messages with a
speech synthesizer, such as blind people. I have
corresponded with some via Email, and as you can
imagine they _much_ prefer top-posting so they
don't have to listen to their own original message
all over again. My guess would be that blind users
on Usenet would rather see top-posts as well.

The simple solution, I think, would be if their
"readers" had an option to skip over the old
text that is denoted by > symbols. Then they
could use bottom-posts as well as top. But
from my limited experience, this might take a
while to be implemented: Many of these folks
are using old DOS software, since Windows is
usually pretty inept at dealing with their needs.
I don't doubt that a good Windows app could be
written, but it would take a lot of work for a really
small (and often low-income) market.

---
Perhaps an easy solution would be for the blind person to include
something like, "Please top post, I am blind." in their dotsig?

I'd certainly acceed to their request.

It strikes me that for the majority of posts bottom posting is more
convenient for the reader. Not everyone reading a thread will have
been invloved from the outset and to be able to follow the thread in a
normal, for most languages, top to bottom direction makes it much
easier to make sense (assuming such sense exists!) of the thread.

However, when tempers fray and personalities enter the picture, as
they too often do, inter-posting seems to creep in, which, while
frequently entertaining, tends to be a bit confusing.

Top posting, except in exceptional circumstances such as the one
mentioned above, and which, I must admit, is one of which I had never
thought, tend to break up the flow of conversation and information.
Perhaps an explanation, such as "I'm top posting because - - - "
which could involve just about anything. Mind you, the first reason
that leaps to mind would be "Because I think the whole following
thread is a load of old monkey dung!" After all, if you're going to
throw a cat among the pigeons, why not be blatant about it!!

When I first started posting, I tended to top post, because that
seemed the place where most people would notice my post. I was
quickly and, I must say, pleasantly, informed of my error. Most top
posters are newbies, so a quiet word and explanation as to why bottom
posting is preferred would be more helpful than derision and insults.

Which leads me to a further point.

The internet generally provides for the free and open exchange of
ideas, as are newsgroups. This board is to allow those beginning in
electronics to ask questions of those who have been in the field a
little longer. Some of those questions will be naive and some will be
thoughtless. However, while it is sometimes tempting to answer with
sarcasm or invective, it does't help the questioner and it does
nothing for the reputation of the respondent. If the question is
either naive or thoughtless, the questioner can be so informed without
calling his or her ancestry into question.

Further, you may not agree with some of the opinions or answers given.
This is only natural; if we all agreed with each other all the time
we'd be as boring as accountants. But to swear at and insult each
other is just plain immature and undisciplined. And it certainly
doesn't encourage those who come here looking for help and guidance to
return.

I don't want to sound as though I'm preaching, but some of the entries
I've read recently make me wonder about the ages of the posters. I've
only been posting to this group for a while, but I try to apply the
same rules to postings that I would to business meetings I chair - If
you can't say what you want to say politely and without swearing,
you're not achieving anything.

Now I just know I'm at least going to get flamed by an accountant!!


John


John,

I agree, but BTW are you a missionary?

pieter

Change p. to piet to find the correct e-mail address.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.519 / Virus Database: 317 - Release Date: 17-9-2003

No, but I've used the position!

John

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:22:17 GMT, "John Fortier"
<jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

"petrus bitbyter" <p.kralt@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:znAdb.291044$P03.59243635@amsnews02.chello.com...

I agree, but BTW are you a missionary?

No, but I've used the position!

---
To propagate blather, no doubt.

--
John Fields

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <hoignvg978ev2avh2pms760nmbjrjb8q8v@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:22:17 GMT, "John Fortier"
jfortier@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


"petrus bitbyter" <p.kralt@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:znAdb.291044$P03.59243635@amsnews02.chello.com...

I agree, but BTW are you a missionary?



No, but I've used the position!

---
To propagate blather, no doubt.

I don't think that was quite what he was propagating.

--
Keith