Top or Bottom posting?

Just courious as to what everyone prefers?
I like bottom but it looks like most are top posting.
Just thoughts not a flame war.

[Pszemol]

> wrote in message ...
> Just courious as to what everyone prefers?

You know what everyone prefers just by looking at our
postings...

> I like bottom but it looks like most are top posting.

When you reply to whole article as a one thing it
is easier to reply on top, to not force the reader
to scroll screens of old text to get to your reply...

It is not wise to quote *everything* but instead
only what is important to understand the answer
without checking back the original posting...

In other hand, when you reply to many threads
in one post one by one it is better when you
insert your short replies inbetween threads of
the original quotation. And again, quote only
what is necessary, not the whole thing...

[Mort]

I agree =)


> When you reply to whole article as a one thing it
> is easier to reply on top, to not force the reader
> to scroll screens of old text to get to your reply...
>
> It is not wise to quote *everything* but instead
> only what is important to understand the answer
> without checking back the original posting...
>
> In other hand, when you reply to many threads
> in one post one by one it is better when you
> insert your short replies inbetween threads of
> the original quotation. And again, quote only
> what is necessary, not the whole thing...

[Kelly]

I'm too lazy for all that scrolling so I like top posting.
"Mort" > wrote in message
om...
> I agree =)
>
>
> > When you reply to whole article as a one thing it
> > is easier to reply on top, to not force the reader
> > to scroll screens of old text to get to your reply...
> >
> > It is not wise to quote *everything* but instead
> > only what is important to understand the answer
> > without checking back the original posting...
> >
> > In other hand, when you reply to many threads
> > in one post one by one it is better when you
> > insert your short replies inbetween threads of
> > the original quotation. And again, quote only
> > what is necessary, not the whole thing...
>
>

[Bob Parkins]

TOP!

> wrote in message
...
> Just courious as to what everyone prefers?
> I like bottom but it looks like most are top posting.
> Just thoughts not a flame war.

No BOTTOM!


IMHO, correcting someone, whether it be top OR bottom posting, is rude. It
is like having a conversation with someone over the phone who you don't
really know and correcting his/her grammar. Only it is worse because there
really is no right or wrong way, just preference. Do what you think is best
and don't worry about what the rest of us think.

[Pszemol]

"Bob Parkins" > wrote in message ink.net...
> IMHO, correcting someone, whether it be top OR bottom posting, is rude.

Nobody corrects here anybody - he asked for opinion. He has got it.

> Do what you think is best
> and don't worry about what the rest of us think.

Many usenet users evolve from quoting under their posts
when they are newbie, to writing under the quoted sentences...

It is easier when all of us follow one standard than if all
will do whatever they think is best... Your suggestion is just
pushing us to chaos and disorder or some kind of anarchy ;-)
It is like you would not care about the English grammar or
interpunction... Standards are to make life little easier.

For example - the character marking the quotation, the '>' sign.
It is the standard for decades and many usenet newsreaders
are designed to treat quotes in a special way - hide them or
make them hierarchical or just present different levels of
quotation with a different color...

And quoting everything is just waste of bandwidth... Why do it?
Everybody can check the original article checking back in the thread.
No need to quote everything just to add one line of your comment.
Unfortunatelly, many users do this thinking it should be this way
or not knowing how to select and delete some part of the text :-(

Take it easy folks - cheers to all! :-)))

[Happy'Cam'per]

Take a squizz at Christs soldiers sig, this would explain it all.
And yet I still feel compelled to top post <g>.
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**


> wrote in message
...
> Just courious as to what everyone prefers?
> I like bottom but it looks like most are top posting.
> Just thoughts not a flame war.
>
>
>

[Marc Levenson]

I post above because my reader automatically puts the original message below.

I do tend to post where it fits the message, sometimes interspersed, sometimes
below. Usually on top.

And I do tend to quote almost everything, only because I don't get all of the
messages with my ISP and thus I tend to think others might not either. In this
way, they know what I replied to, and can hopefully follow the train of thought.

Marc


Happy'Cam'per wrote:

> Take a squizz at Christs soldiers sig, this would explain it all.
> And yet I still feel compelled to top post <g>.
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Toni]

> wrote in message
...
> Just courious as to what everyone prefers?
> I like bottom but it looks like most are top posting.
> Just thoughts not a flame war.
>


<the whole top or bottom issue has been discussed ad nauseum on Usenet for
years- we won't be solving it here>

I don't care *where* you post as long as you know how to snip out the
irrelevant bits.
Nothing worse than scrolling down for what feels like forever only to see a
"me too" type reply.

--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/reef.htm

[Marc Levenson]

Ain't that the truth!

Marc


Toni wrote:

> Nothing worse than scrolling down for what feels like forever only to see a
> "me too" type reply.
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Pszemol]

"Toni" > wrote in message hlink.net...
> Nothing worse than scrolling down for what feels like forever only
> to see a "me too" type reply.

And what if somebody thinks it is the best way to participate? ;-)

[Toni]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Toni" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> > Nothing worse than scrolling down for what feels like forever only
> > to see a "me too" type reply.
>
> And what if somebody thinks it is the best way to participate? ;-)



Well then- somebody thinks differently than me.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/reef.htm

[Pszemol]

"Toni" > wrote in message ink.net...
> > And what if somebody thinks it is the best way to participate? ;-)
>
> Well then- somebody thinks differently than me.

.... and should be punished with infesting all his/her tanks with 1000 aiptasia each ;-)

[Christ's Soldiers]

--

-John
Because it makes things difficult to understand.
Why shouldn't I top post?

[Christ's Soldiers]

In the land of rec.aquaria.marine.reefs, the word of the Lord came
to Marc Levenson and verily he spoke saying:

> I post above because my reader automatically puts the original
> message below.

Really? I was pretty sure that the mozilla browser defaulted to bottom
posting. Did you change the settings?

To me it is like driving on the right side of the road. If everyone
just did whatever they wanted then we would put that under the "bad
things" category. Anyway, top posting bothers me less than a two word
reply to a 200 line message with no trimming *g*

--

-John
Because it makes things difficult to understand.
Why shouldn't I top post?

[Christ's Soldiers]

In the land of rec.aquaria.marine.reefs, the word of the Lord came
to Marc Levenson and verily he spoke saying:

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Ain't that the truth!
>
> Marc
>
>
> Toni wrote:
>
>> Nothing worse than scrolling down for what feels like forever
>> only to see a "me too" type reply.
>>
>
> --
> Personal Page:
> http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business
> Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist:
> http://www.melevsreef.com
>
>
> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --------------42746801BB1AE8416A75B63B
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> Ain't that the truth!
> <br><br>
> Marc
> <br>&nbsp;
> <p>Toni wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Nothing worse than scrolling down for what
> feels like forever only to see a
> <br>"me too" type reply.
> <br><a
> href="http://www.cearbhaill.com/reef.htm"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote>
>
> <p>--
> <br>Personal Page:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A
> HREF="http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html">http:/
> /www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html</A> <br>Business
> Page:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A
> HREF="http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com">http://www.sparklingflo
> orservice.com</A> <br>Marine Hobbyist:&nbsp;&nbsp; <A
> HREF="http://www.melevsreef.com">http://www.melevsreef.com</A>
> <br>&nbsp;</html>
>
> Attachment decoded: untitled-3.htm
> --------------42746801BB1AE8416A75B63B--



This is an example of how an HTML message appears in a standards
complying news reader. Just FYI. Also here is a neat trick,

begin fake.exe
This will appear as an attachment if you have a non-standards
confoming newsreader.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;265230
end

If you see an attachment on this post called fake.exe and you are
using an old version of outlook express then view the source of this
message to see why.

--

-John
Because it makes things difficult to understand.
Why shouldn't I top post?

[Pszemol]

"Christ's Soldiers" > wrote in message . 1.4...
> begin fake.exe
> This will appear as an attachment if you have a non-standards
> confoming newsreader.
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;265230
> end
>
> If you see an attachment on this post called fake.exe and you are
> using an old version of outlook express then view the source of this
> message to see why.


But in your case it *is* valid atachment since it is ended with "end" clause.

[Microbot]

> To me it is like driving on the right side of the road. If everyone
> just did whatever they wanted then we would put that under the "bad
> things" category.

If people started driving on the right side of the road over my way, then
there'd be a hell of alot of accidents.... (Australia) :)

Cheers
Microbot

[Bob Parkins]

> If people started driving on the right side of the road over my way, then
> there'd be a hell of alot of accidents.... (Australia) :)


I know.... some crazy driver almost killed me in Sydney! You know your
drivers' seats are on the wrong side too!? Not to mention the model names
on cars over there are messed up.... dyslexic auto manufacturers I guess.
I supposes that since the automobile was invented in USA the right side is
the RIGHT side ;)

(broke my personal rule of top-posting because I quoted you..... or should
I say I just expected you to read it upside-down *big toothy grin*)

[Christ's Soldiers]

In the land of rec.aquaria.marine.reefs the word of the Lord came to
Bob Parkins and verily he spoke saying:

> (broke my personal rule of top-posting because I quoted you.....
> or should I say I just expected you to read it upside-down *big
> toothy grin*)

LOL! But see how much more sense it seemed to make to post below when
replying? If you are not quoting then nothing is really wrong with
top posting but in that case why not just not include the original
post at all?

--

-John

Because it makes things difficult to understand.

Why shouldn't I top post?

[Marc Levenson]

I use Netscape to read my email and newsgroup browsing. It puts the quoted
section below..

Marc


Christ's Soldiers wrote:

> In the land of rec.aquaria.marine.reefs, the word of the Lord came
> to Marc Levenson and verily he spoke saying:
>
> > I post above because my reader automatically puts the original
> > message below.
>
> Really? I was pretty sure that the mozilla browser defaulted to bottom
> posting. Did you change the settings?
>
> To me it is like driving on the right side of the road. If everyone
> just did whatever they wanted then we would put that under the "bad
> things" category. Anyway, top posting bothers me less than a two word
> reply to a 200 line message with no trimming *g*
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Microbot]

> I know.... some crazy driver almost killed me in Sydney! You know your
> drivers' seats are on the wrong side too!?

That's just Sydney.. (kidding)

> I supposes that since the automobile was invented in USA the right side is
> the RIGHT side ;)

No comment. hehe

> (broke my personal rule of top-posting because I quoted you..... or
should
> I say I just expected you to read it upside-down *big toothy grin*)

Well after all, I am living in the land Down Under. (sorry.. bad joke. haha)

I usually top post except when quoting or replying to sections of a post.

Cheers
Microbot

[Christ's Soldiers]

In the land of rec.aquaria.marine.reefs, the word of the Lord came
to Marc Levenson and verily he spoke saying:

> I use Netscape to read my email and newsgroup browsing. It puts
> the quoted section below..

Yes I saw that you were using Mozilla (netscape) from your agent info
in the header. I was sure that it was set to bottom post by default but
maybe it's changes since I used it. Anyway I'm not one to make a big
deal about "usenet etiquette", then again, if I ever see someone use a
salad fork on their main course I don't get to bent out of shape
either. I was pretty sure that most of the people here weren't big
usenet people due to the almost complete lack of standards complying
news readers and things like X-faces etc.

--

-John
Because it makes things difficult to understand.
Why shouldn't I top post?

OK so thats settled. We agree to disagree, cool with me.

[CapFusion]

Just simply use a common sense.
Whatever people prefer or where to post is fine. The main key is to post a
question and get a response back with minium of effort. Not to get people
mad or need to look for it. Again, use common sense. If you do not, your
post or question may never get answer or get flame at.

Just put it this way.
As a user whom want to ask question and expect a response or answer.
You better not hide your question or give vague question. You may wait while
if any to get response or an answer back.

As a person response.
Answer to a post and put in a middle of somewhere and or very botton of a
very long post and needed extra effort, the user may not be able to find it.
So there no point of your response or answer to that post.

CapFusion,...

> wrote in message
...
> OK so thats settled. We agree to disagree, cool with me.
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Parkins]

I actually agree with you.... opps! I think I did it on top again ;-)

"Christ's Soldiers" > wrote in message
7.132...
> In the land of rec.aquaria.marine.reefs the word of the Lord came to
> Bob Parkins and verily he spoke saying:
>
> > (broke my personal rule of top-posting because I quoted you.....
> > or should I say I just expected you to read it upside-down *big
> > toothy grin*)
>
> LOL! But see how much more sense it seemed to make to post below when
> replying? If you are not quoting then nothing is really wrong with
> top posting but in that case why not just not include the original
> post at all?
>
> --
>
> -John
>
> Because it makes things difficult to understand.
>
> Why shouldn't I top post?

[Bob Parkins]

> > (broke my personal rule of top-posting because I quoted you..... or
> should
> > I say I just expected you to read it upside-down *big toothy grin*)
>
> Well after all, I am living in the land Down Under. (sorry.. bad joke.
haha)


You got the joke ;)
I am actually surprized how many people from "down under" I run into here
and on RC.

[Bob Parkins]

This is a reasonably friendly group... no worries here. Believe me, I have
been on some pretty aggressive Usenet groups in the past.

"CapFusion" > wrote in message
...
> Just simply use a common sense.
> Whatever people prefer or where to post is fine. The main key is to post a
> question and get a response back with minium of effort. Not to get people
> mad or need to look for it. Again, use common sense. If you do not, your
> post or question may never get answer or get flame at.
>
> Just put it this way.
> As a user whom want to ask question and expect a response or answer.
> You better not hide your question or give vague question. You may wait
while
> if any to get response or an answer back.
>
> As a person response.
> Answer to a post and put in a middle of somewhere and or very botton of a
> very long post and needed extra effort, the user may not be able to find
it.
> So there no point of your response or answer to that post.
>
> CapFusion,...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK so thats settled. We agree to disagree, cool with me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Microbot]

> You got the joke ;)
> I am actually surprized how many people from "down under" I run into here
> and on RC.
>

RC ?
I'd assume there would be a fair few Aussies lurking around here, We do have
one hell of a big Reef off the Coastline my way (The Great Barrier Reef).
Unfortunately it is still a good drive up from where I am near Brisbane QLD.
And a good 60 kilometres off shore..
We can snorkel off the beaches and see some good corals but nothing like the
GBR has to offer.. I'll make a short trip up there one day.... Soon :)

Cheers
Microbot

[Bob Parkins]

Well I should just swing by and check out your tank then ;)
My grandparents live near there... Ocean Shores actually. They sent my wife
and I on a cruise up the GBR. This was before I was a reefer but I always
loved this stuff. We had a short snorkle trip... not nearly enough.
You have a beautiful country.

"Microbot" > wrote in message
u...
> > You got the joke ;)
> > I am actually surprized how many people from "down under" I run into
here
> > and on RC.
> >
>
> RC ?
> I'd assume there would be a fair few Aussies lurking around here, We do
have
> one hell of a big Reef off the Coastline my way (The Great Barrier Reef).
> Unfortunately it is still a good drive up from where I am near Brisbane
QLD.
> And a good 60 kilometres off shore..
> We can snorkel off the beaches and see some good corals but nothing like
the
> GBR has to offer.. I'll make a short trip up there one day.... Soon :)
>
> Cheers
> Microbot
>
>

[Microbot]

Ocean Shores is near Byron Bay NSW i think...
Not too far from me but still a good driving trip.
I'm a little further up north and closer to the Reef than Byron Bay, there's
some nice places around northern NSW.
My tanks is only in it's infancy just yet. hehe
Gradually building it up with what funds are available until i need to move
from the 4 foot that it is now to a larger size up.
No idea what size next. at least twice the size. lol

Cheers
Microbot

"Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Well I should just swing by and check out your tank then ;)
> My grandparents live near there... Ocean Shores actually. They sent my
wife
> and I on a cruise up the GBR. This was before I was a reefer but I always
> loved this stuff. We had a short snorkle trip... not nearly enough.
> You have a beautiful country.
>
> "Microbot" > wrote in message
> u...
> > > You got the joke ;)
> > > I am actually surprized how many people from "down under" I run into
> here
> > > and on RC.
> > >
> >
> > RC ?
> > I'd assume there would be a fair few Aussies lurking around here, We do
> have
> > one hell of a big Reef off the Coastline my way (The Great Barrier
Reef).
> > Unfortunately it is still a good drive up from where I am near Brisbane
> QLD.
> > And a good 60 kilometres off shore..
> > We can snorkel off the beaches and see some good corals but nothing like
> the
> > GBR has to offer.. I'll make a short trip up there one day.... Soon :)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Microbot
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris Taylor]

""""I supposes that since the automobile was invented in USA""""

Methinks you need to revise your understanding of American invention.

Nicolas Cugnot (French) built world's first powered vehicle in 1770; a steam
tractor. In 1860 Gottlieb Daimler from Germany made the first car fitted
with a petrol engine. Henry Ford built his first car in 1896.

Chris

[Bob Parkins]

A nod to the Germans then.

"Chris Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> """"I supposes that since the automobile was invented in USA""""
>
> Methinks you need to revise your understanding of American invention.
>
> Nicolas Cugnot (French) built world's first powered vehicle in 1770; a
steam
> tractor. In 1860 Gottlieb Daimler from Germany made the first car fitted
> with a petrol engine. Henry Ford built his first car in 1896.
>
> Chris
>
>

[Chris Taylor]

They do, however, still drive on the right hand side of the road; your point
still being valid.

Regards


Chris

"Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> A nod to the Germans then.
>
> "Chris Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > """"I supposes that since the automobile was invented in USA""""
> >
> > Methinks you need to revise your understanding of American invention.
> >
> > Nicolas Cugnot (French) built world's first powered vehicle in 1770; a
> steam
> > tractor. In 1860 Gottlieb Daimler from Germany made the first car fitted
> > with a petrol engine. Henry Ford built his first car in 1896.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Parkins]

This is true. They also arguably make better cars..... but mechanics
overcharge here to maintain them. However, the BMWs and Benz that are sold
in the US are different.... they have American design firms re-engineer the
interiors because we like leather and gadgets.... the Japanese figured out
the gadget thing years ago.
Then there are the French.... LOL... well they gave as a nice, but that was
when they understood what liberty and freedom meant (either that or they
were kissing up). No wait! That's right.... they did give us the kiss...
we can give them a nod for that.

"Chris Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> They do, however, still drive on the right hand side of the road; your
point
> still being valid.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Chris
>
> "Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > A nod to the Germans then.
> >
> > "Chris Taylor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > """"I supposes that since the automobile was invented in USA""""
> > >
> > > Methinks you need to revise your understanding of American invention.
> > >
> > > Nicolas Cugnot (French) built world's first powered vehicle in 1770; a
> > steam
> > > tractor. In 1860 Gottlieb Daimler from Germany made the first car
fitted
> > > with a petrol engine. Henry Ford built his first car in 1896.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[CapFusion]

"Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> This is true. They also arguably make better cars..... but mechanics
> overcharge here to maintain them. However, the BMWs and Benz that are
sold
> in the US are different.... they have American design firms re-engineer
the
> interiors because we like leather and gadgets.... the Japanese figured out
> the gadget thing years ago.
> Then there are the French.... LOL... well they gave as a nice, but that
was
> when they understood what liberty and freedom meant (either that or they
> were kissing up). No wait! That's right.... they did give us the kiss...
> we can give them a nod for that.
>


Heehehe....
I do not get it.

CapFusion,...

[Bob Parkins]

"CapFusion" <CapFusion...@hotmail..,com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > This is true. They also arguably make better cars..... but mechanics
> > overcharge here to maintain them. However, the BMWs and Benz that are
> sold
> > in the US are different.... they have American design firms re-engineer
> the
> > interiors because we like leather and gadgets.... the Japanese figured
out
> > the gadget thing years ago.
> > Then there are the French.... LOL... well they gave as a nice, but that
> was
> > when they understood what liberty and freedom meant (either that or they
> > were kissing up). No wait! That's right.... they did give us the
kiss...
> > we can give them a nod for that.
> >
>
>
> Heehehe....
> I do not get it.
>
> CapFusion,...


Opps... sorry, I was spell-checking but got distracted... what I was saying
was "they gave us a nice STATUE [of liberty]."
Is that what you didn't get, or the french-kiss?

[CapFusion]

"Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
link.net...

> > Heehehe....
> > I do not get it.
> >
> > CapFusion,...
>
>
> Opps... sorry, I was spell-checking but got distracted... what I was
saying
> was "they gave us a nice STATUE [of liberty]."
> Is that what you didn't get, or the french-kiss?
>

8,P
I think you miss my "Heehehe" part.

Let me try again....

HH HH hh hh
HH HH hh hh
HHHHHH eeeee eeeee hh eeeeee hh eeeee
HHHHHH ee ee ee ee hhhhh ee ee hhhhh ee ee
HH HH eeeee eeeee hh hh eeeeee hh hh eeeee
HH HH ee ee hh hh ee hh hh ee
HH HH eeeee eeeee hh hh eeeeee hh hh eeeee
I do not get it.


CapFusion,...

[Bob Parkins]

"CapFusion" <CapFusion...@hotmail..,com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Parkins" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> > > Heehehe....
> > > I do not get it.
> > >
> > > CapFusion,...
> >
> >
> > Opps... sorry, I was spell-checking but got distracted... what I was
> saying
> > was "they gave us a nice STATUE [of liberty]."
> > Is that what you didn't get, or the french-kiss?
> >
>
> 8,P
> I think you miss my "Heehehe" part.
>
> Let me try again....
>
> HH HH hh hh
> HH HH hh hh
> HHHHHH eeeee eeeee hh eeeeee hh eeeee
> HHHHHH ee ee ee ee hhhhh ee ee hhhhh ee ee
> HH HH eeeee eeeee hh hh eeeeee hh hh eeeee
> HH HH ee ee hh hh ee hh hh ee
> HH HH eeeee eeeee hh hh eeeeee hh hh eeeee
> I do not get it.

Now this should be obvious, but I am lost.