None of you get it do you??

TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
alt.geek. I just looked to see if it really exists and it does. You will
frighten people away with you incessant moaning. Get a life. Nobody
interested in various answers to fishy questions will care where people
reply, and I think photos help and should be included in the post where it
helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
will help.

Go away and grow up.

Fireball





"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message
...
Derek Broughton wrote:

rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
even
appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top
posting
either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

"be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
essence of bottom posting.

"Crashj" wrote in message
...
On or about Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:53 GMT, "Nedra"
wrote something like:

Yeaaaaa for Fireball!!! There I voted.

Nedra


I can certainly understand your reaction and I am fine with you all
top posting short conversations, but why won't you trim your posts?
--
Crashj

I don't know why, but Fireball's message never showed up on OE, which I use.
I only saw Nedra's quote. Still, I have to ask, if Fireball has to ask
whether Nedra or several others in the discussion even has a pond, he hasn't
shown any interest in actually reading the group. (There - I bottom posted.
But I still like the conversational, email-toned flow of top-posting. It
eliminates the need to snip, since many people are too stubborn about it. I
don't see that top posting is any worse.

"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a
newsgroup
on the topic of news groups?

Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
this forum like you that top post.

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity. Top posting, on the other
hand, is scorned beyond all reason, in my book. I don't see the difference.
Regular etiquette has some outdated rules that have gone by the wayside as
no longer relevant or appreciated. Why can't some of the original
netiquette rules go the same way? Are there some newsreaders out there that
really make top-posting hard to follow?
As for not mentioning spelling mistakes, once someone here referred to a
goldfish "bowel". A couple of well worded, gentle jokes were made and most
people had a good laugh, including the OP. Even after the OP chimed in with
his or her contribution to the humor of it, there were people who posted
with severe indignation at someone's spelling being commented upon. Even
when the original poster responded to that, to say they thought it was
funny, there were those who weren't satisfied.
It all seems the same to me.

Ann in Houston wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity.

It's not worse. But flaming spelling is unfair when you don't know if the
other party really is an ignorant unschooled lout. Anybody should be able
to figure out how to post in a sequentially meaningful manner.

Are there some newsreaders out there
that really make top-posting hard to follow?

All of them. It's just fine to top-post _once_, but when everybody is
posting on top of a sequence of top-posters, it's time for the bit bucket.

[I swore I'd had enough of this thread...]
--
derek

"Ann in Houston" wrote:

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling?

Net etiquette discourages top posting because it makes reading in
context much more difficult.

Correct net etiquette is to overlook spelling mistakes, in fact it
encourages spelling shortcuts, IMHO. Perfect spelling is not necessary
in news groups since most postings are conversational in nature and it
is more important to share ideas then to share correct spelling. I must
admit that I stop reading some posting since the misspellings make
reading a chore, and that is not what I am here for. I try to read what
I write before posting and usually run spell checker.

By the way, net etiquette dates back to the ARPANET days (the '70s and
'80s), well before the internet as we know it. Most of the people on
ARPANET were well educated but not English majors by any stretch of the
imagination. To many, English was a second language or third language.

wrote:

None of you get it do you??

You don't get it. You top posted.

If you are not interested in net etiquette in rec.ponds, then don't
follow this thread. Simple.

Manners are a part of life and manners in this group are a part of this
group. Unfortunately some people have been using poor manners in this
group. They should be set on the bottom of the pool until spring ;)

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:01:40 -0000,
wrote:

None of you get it do you??

TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
alt.geek. I just looked to see if it really exists and it does. You will
frighten people away with you incessant moaning. Get a life. Nobody
interested in various answers to fishy questions will care where people
reply, and I think photos help and should be included in the post where it
helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
will help.

Go away and grow up.

Fireball





"Stephen M. Henning" wrote in message
...
Derek Broughton wrote:

rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
even
appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top
posting
either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

"be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
essence of bottom posting.


This is to Fireball. LOOK WHOSE MOANING?

There are MANY reasons for not top posting. First and foremost, if
someone joins a conversation late, they may need to re-read all of the
previous postings to catch up. By posting on top, it makes that
impossible to do by the time there are 4 or 5 messages in a thread.

Pointing out in a thread titled "top posting" a message about top
posting is perfectly fine. If you only want to read about "fishies"
just read those threads.

Your moaning and whining and telling others to grow up says more about
YOU than it does convince others not to point out netiquette
(netiquette means etiquette for how to post on the internet and
newsgroups).

James, Seattle

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:04:48 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
wrote:

Are there some newsreaders out there that
really make top-posting hard to follow?

Some basic standards are needed. We all write left to right and use
punctuation for instance. When people bottom post, someone can join a
conversation with 6 or 7 previous posts and read through ONE post, top
to bottom, and read the entire conversation.

If you want to respond to specific points within a post, the only way
to do that is by quoting, and then replying after each specific
point... what happens when you have top and bottom posts in the same
thread? It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to follow...

Even in THIS post, some reading it and missing your previous post can
read what YOU said, and then my response, to do it the OTHER WAY would
either mean the person wouldn't have a clue as to what I was
responding to OR skip to the bottom, read your post, and then back up
to read my reply.


you might as well write from right to left.

James, Seattle

In , on 11/01/04
at 01:07 PM, "Stephen M. Henning" said:

The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the
message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath
the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing new
posts. Check out this site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.


Alan

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comccast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.1

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.



We've had this discussion in alt. food wine already. Bottom posting
is the norm. In rec. birds most bottom but not all (;-{

All the best,

Larry
Southern Ontario