Top Posting Is Easyer To Read.

Top Posting Is Easyer to read.

When you respond to a post, if you put your responce at
the top, it is easyer for everyone to read. The acception
would be when you are parcing the post out, and responding
to each part individualy.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
...
Top Posting Is Easyer to read.



Nothing too personal, Wayne, but can we please not start this crap
again? It's a matter of opinion. Most everyone here has heard all the
arguments for and against both top and bottom posting ad nauseum, and
few minds are changed, no matter if the thread goes on for weeks, as
it generally does.


Let us just move on. If you see a method of posting that you
don't like, snort your distaste and read on. USENET is a melting pot
for the entire world, and there is *no* way *anyone* is going to make
everyone behave or post the "right" way.

Let us just move on.

BTW, it's "easier". eg

billy

Wayne Sallee wrote:
Top Posting Is Easyer to read.

When you respond to a post, if you put your responce at the top, it is
easyer for everyone to read. The acception would be when you are parcing
the post out, and responding to each part individualy.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

I totally agree and much prefer it but at the other newsgroups I visit
they crack up if you do it so I have my newsreader set to start a reply
underneath. Sometimes I remember to change it here as no one seems to mind.

I might go and change it back to start at the top which will give them
something to complain about - love starting wars

So what's the argument against top posting?

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



miskairal wrote on 11/26/2005 1:10 AM:
Wayne Sallee wrote:

Top Posting Is Easyer to read.

When you respond to a post, if you put your responce at the top, it is
easyer for everyone to read. The acception would be when you are
parcing the post out, and responding to each part individualy.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


I totally agree and much prefer it but at the other newsgroups I visit
they crack up if you do it so I have my newsreader set to start a reply
underneath. Sometimes I remember to change it here as no one seems to mind.

I might go and change it back to start at the top which will give them
something to complain about - love starting wars

Wayne Sallee wrote on Sat, 26 Nov 2005:
So what's the argument against top posting?

It's difficult to understand the context. Someone who picks up a random
article is forced to read from bottom to top, which isn't the usual direction.

Moreover, people who prefer top posting tend to be "lazy" and just include
the entire previous thread appended to the end of their message. It isn't
always clear what point they care about or are responding to, and it takes
effort to read the whole volume of previous material to figure out what their
reply is referring to.

Whereas, in the original "bottom-posting" style, people tend to edit the
material they are replying to, and only include the part that is relevant to
their specific reply. In addition, they usually interleave their reply with
the different parts of the individual post that they are replying to. This
makes for much higher information density per posting, and allows people to
read each article in the natural top-to-bottom order.

Some people who prefer top-posting argue that the whole thread is included in
every message, so you can always see the entire context if you need to.
Those who prefer bottom-posting dislike the huge redundancy of constantly
copying all that text, and rely on threaded newsreaders if they want to
explore previous postings in the thread.

I'm not (in this post) arguing for one or the other, but you asked for a
justification, so there's a few.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
If I had a mine shaft, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to
be a better way. -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]

I dont' see a problem with bottom posting, if the poster
quotes a short part, and then replies to it, or sees the
need to reply to different segments, but when a poster
post the entire refered to post, and it's refered posts,
only to post at the bottom of that, it seems rather
backwards,and redundant.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Don Geddis wrote on 11/26/2005 12:17 PM:
Wayne Sallee wrote on Sat, 26 Nov 2005:

So what's the argument against top posting?


It's difficult to understand the context. Someone who picks up a random
article is forced to read from bottom to top, which isn't the usual direction.

Moreover, people who prefer top posting tend to be "lazy" and just include
the entire previous thread appended to the end of their message. It isn't
always clear what point they care about or are responding to, and it takes
effort to read the whole volume of previous material to figure out what their
reply is referring to.

Whereas, in the original "bottom-posting" style, people tend to edit the
material they are replying to, and only include the part that is relevant to
their specific reply. In addition, they usually interleave their reply with
the different parts of the individual post that they are replying to. This
makes for much higher information density per posting, and allows people to
read each article in the natural top-to-bottom order.

Some people who prefer top-posting argue that the whole thread is included in
every message, so you can always see the entire context if you need to.
Those who prefer bottom-posting dislike the huge redundancy of constantly
copying all that text, and rely on threaded newsreaders if they want to
explore previous postings in the thread.

I'm not (in this post) arguing for one or the other, but you asked for a
justification, so there's a few.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
If I had a mine shaft, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to
be a better way. -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:26:03 GMT, Wayne Sallee
wrote:

Top Posting Is Easyer to read.

When you respond to a post, if you put your responce at
the top, it is easyer for everyone to read. The acception
would be when you are parcing the post out, and responding
to each part individualy.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Hello Wayne,

This group is so quiet now, that any post is welcome,don't you think ?

Regards, Fishnut.

LOL Good Luck with that one!! :-)
That one is like arguing about religion.
Weird, never understood that, people
get hot about not following their personal order of things.

I have always snipped unnecessary fat and posted top
or on pertinent lines. And have gotten brutally chewed about it. hehehehe


Wayne Sallee wrote:

Top Posting Is Easyer to read.

When you respond to a post, if you put your responce at the top, it is
easyer for everyone to read. The acception would be when you are
parcing the post out, and responding to each part individualy.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

RicSeyler wrote:
LOL Good Luck with that one!! :-)
That one is like arguing about religion.
Weird, never understood that, people
get hot about not following their personal order of things.

I have always snipped unnecessary fat and posted top
or on pertinent lines. And have gotten brutally chewed about it.
hehehehe

Seems newbies always top post until they get tired of being bitched out or
eventually realize that it's easier to respond to long posts by starting at
the top and posting your reply under each separate point you're answering.
Plus it's easier for all if everyone follows a standard. That's how it went
for me, anyhow.