| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tim Adlam
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: TOP POSTING THREAD |
 |
|
Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
explored.
isn't there something more interesting to talk about?
tim
| Quote: |
indeed
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:bNI%h.34988$M.14790@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Well, precisely.
"Neil - Usenet" <usenet1@SPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Q2I%h.10288$1J.8919@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
o dear
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:_sZ_h.34100$M.27803@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Now, if each of those lines were posted by different people (as would
actually happen, given that your example is a question and answer one),
then CHRONOLOGICALLY they would have followed the normal course of a
canversation. I would have read then, as they arrived, only having the
read the top-most post and would have understood it perfectly.
How about I take your oh-so-witty (yet strangely idiotic, once analysed)
example and take it to its extreme logical conclusion for BOTTOM
POSTING:
PERSON A SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
PERSON B SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
A: Top-posting
PERSON A SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
A: Top-posting
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
PERSON B SAYS:
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
A: Top-posting
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text
How is that better?
"Roadhog" <muttleycruise@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:myZxs7Gc45JGFw9$@nildram.co.uk...
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
--
Roadhog
Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all |
points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
explored.
isn't there something more interesting to talk about?
tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rose
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: TOP POSTING THREAD |
|
|
On Thu, 10 May 2007 08:23:54 GMT, Tim Adlam wrote:
| Quote: |
Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
explored.
isn't there something more interesting to talk about?
tim
|
SEX ?????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Doh
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: TOP POSTING THREAD |
|
|
Rose wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 10 May 2007 08:23:54 GMT, Tim Adlam wrote:
Please close this thread - will it ever end? I think all
points about top posting or otherwise have been thoroughly
explored.
isn't there something more interesting to talk about?
tim
SEX ??????
|
Do you go like it on top or bottom.
Or up the bottom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff York
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: TOP POSTING |
|
|
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:huk3431lra1ta282399bs7mquvjh4l7irs@4ax.com...
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:27u043hfkl725ht2e9110rbbkcik7n1erc@4ax.com...
"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
"NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
news:qaH%h.1946$o42.900@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
mattic wrote:
"NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
news:v0G%h.1939$o42.163@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
mattic wrote:
What DOESN'T make sense, however, it having to read through
everything
you've already read in order to get to the single line that's new.
But, you do what you like. Be sure to extend me the same courtesy.
I bottom post because it's the convention and is regarded as
manners,
you want to play a different game then don't be surprised if your
contributions are ignored.
I don't mind being ignored, it's very much the loss of those prepared
to
irrationally and illogically ignore a comment simply because it is
top-posted, rather than any particular bore for me.
But it isn't irrational or illogical, the rationality is that's the
ettiquette and it's logical everyone in the same game plays by the
same
rules, you want to swim against the tide, your choice, all I'm
pointing
out it could lead to your overall loss.
You miss the point. It is irrational and illogical to dismiss a comment
based simply on its position on the page.
It's not so much "dismiss the comment" as "dismiss the *commenter*"...
Which amounts to the same thing AND you add "Ad Hominem" to the mix,
another
logical fallacy.
We aren't discussing logic... We're discussing communication - or the
lack thereof.
And the arguments therein have thrown up one idiotic and one very-well-known
logical fallacy. One cannot have a decent discussion without logic, or the
pointing-out of illogic, playing a part.
|
Agreed in part. But.. "Ad hominem" doesn't in my opinion, really apply
to my contention. I'll agree that I'm attacking the person rather than
the argument, but that is because, in my experience, the type of
person and the validity and/or information value of their postings
correlate very closely. I may indeed miss the odd gem, but in
exchange I miss an awful lot of crap.
| Quote: |
It's experience-based pragmatism... In general, those who ignore the
accepted etiquette in a particular newsgroup
It is not so in here. In here it is anything but ordered.
Depends where "in here" is... This thread appears to be cross-posted
to about seven different groups. I'm in uk.rec.driving, where you? :-)
Hehehe! Good point! uk.local.hampshire
... Not that that
bothers me overly. Also, we must allow that change is constant.
Change for change sake? Not exactly a strong point.
I didn't mention anything about "for change's sake". The change has evolved
and must be considered. Constantly banging one's head against it will not
hold it back.
|
A change, top-posting, has occurred. In the opinion of a lot of people
it is not a change for the better, thus any change to it is purely for
change's sake.
| Quote: |
and continue so to do
after being reminded of the fact, for some reason rarely say anything
worth reading.
That is a sweeping generalisation.
That's true... But, in my experience, quite valid despite its
generality.
Especially as the people who top-post do not see themselves as anarchists,
"doing it deliberately", they simply have a preferance.
I can't see any reasons other than deliberate contrarianism or basic
idleness to continue top-posting in a bottom-posting group.
Sorry, mate, but Usenet is the wild frontier, there are no rules. If people
are top-posting, there must be a reason for it. MY reasons are not any that
you listed. My reasons are that it's easier for me.
|
.... or to put it another way, "idleness".
| Quote: |
... My point here is not
that I think top-posting is superior but that I will challenge each and
every time the wankers who attempt to force others to do what they want them
to do, with no compelling reason for their way being best. For every
bottom-posting argument, there is a corresponding top-posting rebuttal, and
vice versa. It's not that hard to follow these threads, I think we should do
so and stop whining. A thread that is entirely top-posted is just as easy to
read as one that is entirely bottom-posted.
|
I disagree. If there is, like in this discussion, interleaved
paragraphs, should the interleaving be placed above the text to which
it refers? If yes, then your reading pattern becomes a bit odd... If
no, then you're back to anarchy.
| Quote: |
... This is, of course, if one has
been following the thread and doesn't have the memory retention of a
goldfish. For those latecomers, they must, as in life, catch up in their own
time.
|
Unfortunately, usenet is not a guaranteed propogation. It's not *that*
uncommon for a posting containing a reply to arrive before the post
containing the originating question...
| Quote: |
... I see the merits of
both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.
I can't... "Old-fashoned" "interleaved/bottom" posting seems to do a
reasonable job of emulating a conversation and, bearing in mind the
sometimes wayward propogation of usenet messages, helps to keep the
discussion in context.
The problem is not top or bottom-postng but sloppy posting. Railing against
a logical top-post just makes one look like a prat. Both for not being smart
enough to work it out and for having a go "just coz".
|
Maybe... But there seem to be *so few* "logical top-posts". :-(
| Quote: |
I suppose that a pure top-posted thread could do the same thing, but
you'd need to read it backwards to attempt to make any sense of it.
Why do you need to read the whole thread everytime? This is where your (the
bottom-posting crew) logic starts to crumble. Just read the latest post. For
me, if that's at the top, it's easier.
|
See my comment about usenet propogation...
<snipped the rest because essentially I agree with what you've said> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mattic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: Re: TOP POSTING |
|
|
"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9u96431sn86aa2u7tjapcci3imq3t1e463@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
Agreed in part. But.. "Ad hominem" doesn't in my opinion, really apply
to my contention. I'll agree that I'm attacking the person rather than
the argument, but that is because, in my experience, the type of
person and the validity and/or information value of their postings
correlate very closely. I may indeed miss the odd gem, but in
exchange I miss an awful lot of crap.
|
If, as you say, that is YOUR experience, I cannot argue. I hope you'll allow
that your experience is just that. Yours.
Many may well share your experience and, equally, many may not.
| Quote: |
I didn't mention anything about "for change's sake". The change has
evolved
and must be considered. Constantly banging one's head against it will not
hold it back.
A change, top-posting, has occurred. In the opinion of a lot of people
it is not a change for the better, thus any change to it is purely for
change's sake.
|
Yet there are a lot of people who consider it IS a change for the better.
And this is my point, the camps are divided. The only difference I see is
that one doesn't see the top-posting camp banging on about it all the time.
| Quote: |
Sorry, mate, but Usenet is the wild frontier, there are no rules. If
people
are top-posting, there must be a reason for it. MY reasons are not any
that
you listed. My reasons are that it's easier for me.
... or to put it another way, "idleness".
|
You can use negative words all you like, I see right through them and it
won't change my preference .
| Quote: |
... My point here is not
that I think top-posting is superior but that I will challenge each and
every time the wankers who attempt to force others to do what they want
them
to do, with no compelling reason for their way being best. For every
bottom-posting argument, there is a corresponding top-posting rebuttal,
and
vice versa. It's not that hard to follow these threads, I think we should
do
so and stop whining. A thread that is entirely top-posted is just as easy
to
read as one that is entirely bottom-posted.
I disagree. If there is, like in this discussion, interleaved
paragraphs, should the interleaving be placed above the text to which
it refers? If yes, then your reading pattern becomes a bit odd... If
no, then you're back to anarchy.
|
No, you don't disagree at all, you have raised an entirely different
tangent. I agree entirely that interleaved should be below, no one has ever
suggested otherwise.
| Quote: |
... This is, of course, if one has
been following the thread and doesn't have the memory retention of a
goldfish. For those latecomers, they must, as in life, catch up in their
own
time.
Unfortunately, usenet is not a guaranteed propogation. It's not *that*
uncommon for a posting containing a reply to arrive before the post
containing the originating question...
|
I've never seen that happen. If you say it does, fine, but I expect it's
rare.
| Quote: |
... I see the merits of
both styles and do not think that one is better than the other.
I can't... "Old-fashoned" "interleaved/bottom" posting seems to do a
reasonable job of emulating a conversation and, bearing in mind the
sometimes wayward propogation of usenet messages, helps to keep the
discussion in context.
The problem is not top or bottom-postng but sloppy posting. Railing
against
a logical top-post just makes one look like a prat. Both for not being
smart
enough to work it out and for having a go "just coz".
Maybe... But there seem to be *so few* "logical top-posts". 
|
Hehehe, then you should do what I insist upon at work and that is "we do not
use the systems to manage our people, we manage our people". In other words,
manage the numpties by exception and based on their comments, rather than
the position of those comments on the page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Marty F
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:13 am Post subject: Is Steve Firth going to get battered? |
|
|
On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:58:23 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"jf" <jf@DELETEmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p8SoYOGDAxQGFw05@marage.demon.co.uk...
In message <HdA0i.35942$M.9959@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, mattic
this@wontwork.com> writes
You are a bully.
This from someone who uttered a threat of violence to Steve Firth! To be
charitable, methinks your logic module is not seated properly.
You continue to fuck up. I'm not bullying Firth, I simply wish to belt him
for the insult.
|
Great news! It's about time someone did it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NM
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: TOP POSTING |
|
|
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
| Quote: |
"NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
news:usm0i.4283$MH3.3931@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Bye
Congratulations. You are the undisputed winner of the single word
response to a completely untrimmed 7kb multi-post. Wear it with pride,
you are 'fuckwit of the month'.
|
Thank you, coming from a fool it's the ultimate accolade (meanwhile back
to the drying paint). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Steve Firth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 4:19 am Post subject: Re: Steve 'Coward' Firth isn't going to get battered :-( |
|
|
Marty F <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
You are nothing but a big-mouthed coward, Firth.
|
Said the person hiding behind me@privacy.net. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pete ‹(•¿•)›
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Steve 'Coward' Firth isn't going to get battered :-( |
|
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:44:09 +0100, Simon Dean
<sjdean@simtext.plus.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
NM wrote:
Simon Dean wrote:
Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!
I realise this is neither the time or place, but, I've been thinking
about religion and my spiritual side. With a copy of the bible, it's
difficult to know which church is right.
The answer is none of them. Think for yourself.
Oh right, so having come to the conclusion of my own free will from a
totally non-religious family that, I actually, rather enjoy church and
I'd like to do it on a more regular basic, then this is not my own
freewill? I am not thinking for myself?
How would you like me to think? Like you?
|
LOL you do realize you're talking to a nematode don't you!
--
Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!
PRAYER FOR A NATION
When Pastor Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church, was asked
to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting
the usual politically correct generalities.
But what they heard instead was this:
Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness
and seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says,
‘Woe on those who call evil good,’ but that’s exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
We confess that:
We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;
We have, worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;
We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;
We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation;
We have killed our unborn and called it choice;
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;
We have abused power and called it political savvy;
We have coveted our neighbour’s possessions and called it ambition;
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;
We have ridiculed the time-honoured values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, 0 God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us;
cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have
been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state.
Grant them Your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the centre of Your will. I ask it in the name of Your Son, the Living Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.”
****************
Disclaimer
Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.
It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.
Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter by adding Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk to your kill file.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pete ‹(•¿•)›
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: Re: My .sig |
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 05:49:25 GMT, Barry <carrigan.ben@here.not.there>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:57:30 -0400, ah wrote:
It's a good idea to read awhile before posting.
Nuts to you!
|
A good and wholesome food. Pecan is the daddy of nuts.
--
Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!
PRAYER FOR A NATION
When Pastor Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church, was asked
to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting
the usual politically correct generalities.
But what they heard instead was this:
Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness
and seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says,
‘Woe on those who call evil good,’ but that’s exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
We confess that:
We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;
We have, worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;
We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;
We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation;
We have killed our unborn and called it choice;
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;
We have abused power and called it political savvy;
We have coveted our neighbour’s possessions and called it ambition;
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;
We have ridiculed the time-honoured values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, 0 God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us;
cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have
been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state.
Grant them Your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the centre of Your will. I ask it in the name of Your Son, the Living Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.”
****************
Disclaimer
Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.
It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.
Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter by adding Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk to your kill file.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
