Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Suggestion to the Group

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 23, 2005 6:18:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

What about writing replies on top?
I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing, but why to do the extra
effort of going all the way to the bottom of the message when you really
wouldn't have to, if everyone were to put their replies at the top. Think
about it. Better yet, picture it! You open the message and that's it! All
you've got to do now is read ; )
You'd particularly appreciate it if you had some sort of RRS (or whatever
that is) like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Tendonitis, etc.

My 2 cents,

Jay

More about : suggestion group

Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:18:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:42Due.13011$X57.569574@news20.bellglobal.com...
> What about writing replies on top?
> I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing, but why to do the extra
> effort of going all the way to the bottom of the message when you really
> wouldn't have to, if everyone were to put their replies at the top. Think
> about it. Better yet, picture it! You open the message and that's it! All
> you've got to do now is read ; )
> You'd particularly appreciate it if you had some sort of RRS (or whatever
> that is) like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Tendonitis, etc.

Problem is, you'll always have folks who put replies in several places in
the original message, so you'll never know if you've read everything they
wrote.

With a roller mouse, it really isn't such a deal. The new Logitech mouse
has buttons around the roller that are even faster.

For instantly going to the bottom of a message, just click on the message
and hit the End key.

Pagan
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:18:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Why not just zap the previous message then?
Related resources
June 23, 2005 7:17:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Pagan,

I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that" is (scroll
down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading the message
"IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an "unnecessary
additional step".

J


"Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
news:11bm1o067uj5m60@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:42Due.13011$X57.569574@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> What about writing replies on top?
>> I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing, but why to do the extra
>> effort of going all the way to the bottom of the message when you really
>> wouldn't have to, if everyone were to put their replies at the top. Think
>> about it. Better yet, picture it! You open the message and that's it! All
>> you've got to do now is read ; )
>> You'd particularly appreciate it if you had some sort of RRS (or whatever
>> that is) like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Tendonitis, etc.
>
> Problem is, you'll always have folks who put replies in several places in
> the original message, so you'll never know if you've read everything they
> wrote.
>
> With a roller mouse, it really isn't such a deal. The new Logitech mouse
> has buttons around the roller that are even faster.
>
> For instantly going to the bottom of a message, just click on the message
> and hit the End key.
>
> Pagan
>
>
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Pagan,
>
> I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that" is
(scroll
> down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading the
message
> "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
"unnecessary
> additional step".

No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes so
little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just discussing
this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past couple
years.

You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt and Ctrl
keys became second nature.

We also had to walk to school in the snow...barefoot...uphill...both ways...

Pagan
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Jay wrote:
> What about writing replies on top?

If people would just cut all the irrelevant stuff out of their replies, you
wouldn't need to scroll down even if people didn't top-post...

--

(O) e n o n e
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:39:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Jay wrote:
> What about writing replies on top?

A: Because it messes up the flow of conversation

Q: Why is top-posting a bad idea?
June 24, 2005 12:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Ok, I guess I'm the only damned recovering from tendonitis : (
At least I tried.
Thank you all for your honest responses.

Jay


"Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
news:11bmf8gs61uk6be@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Pagan,
>>
>> I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that" is
> (scroll
>> down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading the
> message
>> "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
> "unnecessary
>> additional step".
>
> No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes
> so
> little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
> somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just discussing
> this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past couple
> years.
>
> You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt and Ctrl
> keys became second nature.
>
> We also had to walk to school in the snow...barefoot...uphill...both
> ways...
>
> Pagan
>
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 1:43:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ShIue.78768$Kk4.1016853@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Ok, I guess I'm the only damned recovering from tendonitis : (
> At least I tried.
> Thank you all for your honest responses.

Both hands?

You might want to try using the mouse with your left/right hand, depending
on which hand hurts. You can also try the Logitech keyboards, some of which
have a scroll wheel on them. It may be possible to remap the keyboard,
though it's been a while since I fiddled with that.

Pagan
June 24, 2005 2:46:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Peter [AGHL]" <peter.aghl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119561202.534865.260560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why not just zap the previous message then?
>

Wot? Who you replying to?

Snipping *can* go too far...

;-)
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:41:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <42Due.13011$X57.569574@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
<nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> What about writing replies on top?
> I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing

Yes.

Two main reasons (on the off-chance that you're not just trolling):

a) bottom posting allows sensible quoting so that you can clearly see
the order the thread developed in. For example, if you were to respond
now by top-posting, how could someone then quote you while still making
sense of the sequence?

b) it encourages people like CF to just jot in their two lines at the
top and then post, without snipping any of the post they're referring
to. This encourages huge reposts, and actively discourages reasoned
argument since you've got no clear place to put your responses to
individual points. All you can do is put a "Me too!" or "LOL" at the
top, without addressing separate points.

> My 2 cents,

Well, exactly.

___
Neil
aka HighVis
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 5:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

JH wrote:
> Jay wrote:
> > What about writing replies on top?
>
> A: Because it messes up the flow of conversation
>
> Q: Why is top-posting a bad idea?

I second these sentiments. I read these groups on Google and although i
can see the tree in the left-hand panel, it is so much easier to keep
up with the discussion when the poster quotes first and follows after
with their comments - bottom posting.

The real bugbear is people not snipping a long post to just the
important phrases.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

consider this analogy:

say I want to walk to the shop to buy some food. I could go the quickest and
easiest route (top posting) or I could go the long way, that takes 1.1 times
as long as walking directly there.(bottom posting).

now by your rationale, I should walk the long way, because "No offence
intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes so
> little effort to" walk the long way.

that doesn't make sense at all. when something has no perceived benefit,
doing it just because "it takes so little effort" is no reason to do it.
it's stupid to think otherwise.

Do you think if I was going to run a marathon, I would wear an extra 25grams
of weight on my belt, because:
"No offence intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes
so
> little effort to" carry those extra 25grams

your argument is absolutely nonsensical. the only reason people bottom post
is for the idea that you can go to the last post in the thread and read the
whole thing at once. but of course you can't do that because people edit out
half the previous posts.

I bet 95% of users read each post from the top of the branch down to the
bottom.

Thus top posting is obviously a better way.

the "cos that's the way it's always been done around here" argument is an
argument espoused by imbeciles and sheep who have no brain to think for
themselves. they just clutch onto the little bits of information that their
futile brains are able to comprehend and proudly profuse their tiny little
bit of "knowledge" for years to come, long after times have changed and
people have moved on from the primitive ideas from the past.


"Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
news:11bmf8gs61uk6be@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Pagan,
> >
> > I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that" is
> (scroll
> > down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading the
> message
> > "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
> "unnecessary
> > additional step".
>
> No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes
so
> little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
> somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just discussing
> this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past couple
> years.
>
> You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt and Ctrl
> keys became second nature.
>
> We also had to walk to school in the snow...barefoot...uphill...both
ways...
>
> Pagan
>
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:28:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
news:D 9fncm$es3$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> consider this analogy:
>
> say I want to walk to the shop to buy some food. I could go the quickest
and
> easiest route (top posting) or I could go the long way, that takes 1.1
times
> as long as walking directly there.(bottom posting).
>
> now by your rationale, I should walk the long way, because "No offence
> intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes so
> > little effort to" walk the long way.
>
> that doesn't make sense at all. when something has no perceived benefit,
> doing it just because "it takes so little effort" is no reason to do it.
> it's stupid to think otherwise.
>
> Do you think if I was going to run a marathon, I would wear an extra
25grams
> of weight on my belt, because:
> "No offence intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes
> so
> > little effort to" carry those extra 25grams
>
> your argument is absolutely nonsensical. the only reason people bottom
post
> is for the idea that you can go to the last post in the thread and read
the
> whole thing at once. but of course you can't do that because people edit
out
> half the previous posts.
>
> I bet 95% of users read each post from the top of the branch down to the
> bottom.
>
> Thus top posting is obviously a better way.
>
> the "cos that's the way it's always been done around here" argument is an
> argument espoused by imbeciles and sheep who have no brain to think for
> themselves. they just clutch onto the little bits of information that
their
> futile brains are able to comprehend and proudly profuse their tiny little
> bit of "knowledge" for years to come, long after times have changed and
> people have moved on from the primitive ideas from the past.
>
>
> "Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
> news:11bmf8gs61uk6be@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Pagan,
> > >
> > > I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that" is
> > (scroll
> > > down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading the
> > message
> > > "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
> > "unnecessary
> > > additional step".
> >
> > No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes
> so
> > little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
> > somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just
discussing
> > this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past
couple
> > years.
> >
> > You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt and
Ctrl
> > keys became second nature.
> >
> > We also had to walk to school in the snow...barefoot...uphill...both
> ways...
> >
> > Pagan
> >
> >
>
>

I retract that statement entirely. bottom posting is clearly better. but
let's watch the morons flow in as they argue a point that I have already
retracted in full.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:28:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
news:D 9fnjv$et4$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>
> "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
> news:D 9fncm$es3$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> > consider this analogy:
> >
> > say I want to walk to the shop to buy some food. I could go the quickest
> and
> > easiest route (top posting) or I could go the long way, that takes 1.1
> times
> > as long as walking directly there.(bottom posting).
> >
> > now by your rationale, I should walk the long way, because "No offence
> > intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes so
> > > little effort to" walk the long way.
> >
> > that doesn't make sense at all. when something has no perceived benefit,
> > doing it just because "it takes so little effort" is no reason to do it.
> > it's stupid to think otherwise.
> >
> > Do you think if I was going to run a marathon, I would wear an extra
> 25grams
> > of weight on my belt, because:
> > "No offence intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It
takes
> > so
> > > little effort to" carry those extra 25grams
> >
> > your argument is absolutely nonsensical. the only reason people bottom
> post
> > is for the idea that you can go to the last post in the thread and read
> the
> > whole thing at once. but of course you can't do that because people edit
> out
> > half the previous posts.
> >
> > I bet 95% of users read each post from the top of the branch down to the
> > bottom.
> >
> > Thus top posting is obviously a better way.
> >
> > the "cos that's the way it's always been done around here" argument is
an
> > argument espoused by imbeciles and sheep who have no brain to think for
> > themselves. they just clutch onto the little bits of information that
> their
> > futile brains are able to comprehend and proudly profuse their tiny
little
> > bit of "knowledge" for years to come, long after times have changed and
> > people have moved on from the primitive ideas from the past.
> >
> >
> > "Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
> > news:11bmf8gs61uk6be@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > Pagan,
> > > >
> > > > I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that" is
> > > (scroll
> > > > down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading the
> > > message
> > > > "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
> > > "unnecessary
> > > > additional step".
> > >
> > > No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It
takes
> > so
> > > little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
> > > somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just
> discussing
> > > this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past
> couple
> > > years.
> > >
> > > You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt and
> Ctrl
> > > keys became second nature.
> > >
> > > We also had to walk to school in the snow...barefoot...uphill...both
> > ways...
> > >
> > > Pagan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> I retract that statement entirely. bottom posting is clearly better. but
> let's watch the morons flow in as they argue a point that I have already
> retracted in full.

Too bad. I was all worked up for a fine argument. heh

Pagan
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:15:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
news:11bn3fap0cf456d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
> news:D 9fnjv$et4$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> >
> > "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
> > news:D 9fncm$es3$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> > > consider this analogy:
> > >
> > > say I want to walk to the shop to buy some food. I could go the
quickest
> > and
> > > easiest route (top posting) or I could go the long way, that takes 1.1
> > times
> > > as long as walking directly there.(bottom posting).
> > >
> > > now by your rationale, I should walk the long way, because "No offence
> > > intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes so
> > > > little effort to" walk the long way.
> > >
> > > that doesn't make sense at all. when something has no perceived
benefit,
> > > doing it just because "it takes so little effort" is no reason to do
it.
> > > it's stupid to think otherwise.
> > >
> > > Do you think if I was going to run a marathon, I would wear an extra
> > 25grams
> > > of weight on my belt, because:
> > > "No offence intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It
> takes
> > > so
> > > > little effort to" carry those extra 25grams
> > >
> > > your argument is absolutely nonsensical. the only reason people bottom
> > post
> > > is for the idea that you can go to the last post in the thread and
read
> > the
> > > whole thing at once. but of course you can't do that because people
edit
> > out
> > > half the previous posts.
> > >
> > > I bet 95% of users read each post from the top of the branch down to
the
> > > bottom.
> > >
> > > Thus top posting is obviously a better way.
> > >
> > > the "cos that's the way it's always been done around here" argument is
> an
> > > argument espoused by imbeciles and sheep who have no brain to think
for
> > > themselves. they just clutch onto the little bits of information that
> > their
> > > futile brains are able to comprehend and proudly profuse their tiny
> little
> > > bit of "knowledge" for years to come, long after times have changed
and
> > > people have moved on from the primitive ideas from the past.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
> > > news:11bmf8gs61uk6be@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > Pagan,
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that"
is
> > > > (scroll
> > > > > down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading
the
> > > > message
> > > > > "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
> > > > "unnecessary
> > > > > additional step".
> > > >
> > > > No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It
> takes
> > > so
> > > > little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
> > > > somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just
> > discussing
> > > > this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past
> > couple
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > > > You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt
and
> > Ctrl
> > > > keys became second nature.
> > > >
> > > > We also had to walk to school in the snow...barefoot...uphill...both
> > > ways...
> > > >
> > > > Pagan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I retract that statement entirely. bottom posting is clearly better. but
> > let's watch the morons flow in as they argue a point that I have already
> > retracted in full.
>
> Too bad. I was all worked up for a fine argument. heh
>
> Pagan
>
>

I still think your argument is absurd. but I do admit it is better to bottom
post.

go for it.. we'll keep it friendly :-)
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 9:09:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:42Due.13011$X57.569574@news20.bellglobal.com...

No thanks, I like the world to make as much sense as possible to make up for
anything I do not making sense.

Or something.
June 25, 2005 1:41:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jay wrote:
> What about writing replies on top?

- - Because it disrupts the natural flow of the conversation.
- - Why are people against top posting?

Apart from that obvious point, top posting gives no way to address spesific
parts of a post. It just stuffs everything together in one clot at the top.
There's a reason it's been considered bad form pretty much since Usenet's
inception.

If people wouldn't be so goddamn lazy and actually prune out irrelevant
quoting from their replies (just look a bit further into this thread for
prime examples of how *not* to do it), there'd be no need to scroll down 4
pages to start reading the reply.

Personally, if I see nothing but quoting in the entire preview window (20+
lines), I move on to the next message. If the poster can't be bothered to
prune, I sure ain't gonna bother reading what s/he has to say.


- --
Frode


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCvGGvNx8IkioE8tMRAh+IAJ9c3ljqLxAs5ICYNgElR6wkn8qcnACeMWdC
H5f4CxbPLaEZMMCK6KU3GTQ=
=uruM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
June 25, 2005 1:42:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

JH wrote:
>>What about writing replies on top?
> A: Because it messes up the flow of conversation
> Q: Why is top-posting a bad idea?

Damn, I knew I should've checked the rest of the thread before I posted a
reply a bit ago :) 


- --
Frode


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCvGIiNx8IkioE8tMRAr8BAJoCnnioMiHLJyhWbYRDanM6F/ZRSgCfRl01
6xA8u6H79PcpFPWLE7gg7qI=
=WWBr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:54:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
news:D 9g4ua$j6k$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>
> "Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
> news:11bn3fap0cf456d@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
>> news:D 9fnjv$et4$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>> >
>> > "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
>> > news:D 9fncm$es3$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>> > > consider this analogy:
>> > >
>> > > say I want to walk to the shop to buy some food. I could go the
> quickest
>> > and
>> > > easiest route (top posting) or I could go the long way, that takes
>> > > 1.1
>> > times
>> > > as long as walking directly there.(bottom posting).
>> > >
>> > > now by your rationale, I should walk the long way, because "No
>> > > offence
>> > > intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It takes so
>> > > > little effort to" walk the long way.
>> > >
>> > > that doesn't make sense at all. when something has no perceived
> benefit,
>> > > doing it just because "it takes so little effort" is no reason to do
> it.
>> > > it's stupid to think otherwise.
>> > >
>> > > Do you think if I was going to run a marathon, I would wear an extra
>> > 25grams
>> > > of weight on my belt, because:
>> > > "No offence intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It
>> takes
>> > > so
>> > > > little effort to" carry those extra 25grams
>> > >
>> > > your argument is absolutely nonsensical. the only reason people
>> > > bottom
>> > post
>> > > is for the idea that you can go to the last post in the thread and
> read
>> > the
>> > > whole thing at once. but of course you can't do that because people
> edit
>> > out
>> > > half the previous posts.
>> > >
>> > > I bet 95% of users read each post from the top of the branch down to
> the
>> > > bottom.
>> > >
>> > > Thus top posting is obviously a better way.
>> > >
>> > > the "cos that's the way it's always been done around here" argument
>> > > is
>> an
>> > > argument espoused by imbeciles and sheep who have no brain to think
> for
>> > > themselves. they just clutch onto the little bits of information that
>> > their
>> > > futile brains are able to comprehend and proudly profuse their tiny
>> little
>> > > bit of "knowledge" for years to come, long after times have changed
> and
>> > > people have moved on from the primitive ideas from the past.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
>> > > news:11bmf8gs61uk6be@corp.supernews.com...
>> > > > "Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > > > news:lVDue.13031$X57.573490@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > > > > Pagan,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I agree in that it's not a big effort to do, but whatever "that"
> is
>> > > > (scroll
>> > > > > down, pagedwn, etc) that one has to do in order to start reading
> the
>> > > > message
>> > > > > "IS" (strictly from an objective and practical stand point) an
>> > > > "unnecessary
>> > > > > additional step".
>> > > >
>> > > > No offense intended, but folks these days are getting spoiled. It
>> takes
>> > > so
>> > > > little effort to scroll down that it rarely crosses my mind, unless
>> > > > somebody's on some marathon post frenzy. I have no doubt just
>> > discussing
>> > > > this topic is more effort than I've expended scrolling in the past
>> > couple
>> > > > years.
>> > > >
>> > > > You know, there was a time before the mouse, when hitting the Alt
> and
>> > Ctrl
>> > > > keys became second nature.
>> > > >
>> > > > We also had to walk to school in the
>> > > > snow...barefoot...uphill...both
>> > > ways...
>> > > >
>> > > > Pagan
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I retract that statement entirely. bottom posting is clearly better.
>> > but
>> > let's watch the morons flow in as they argue a point that I have
>> > already
>> > retracted in full.
>>
>> Too bad. I was all worked up for a fine argument. heh
>>
>> Pagan
>>
>>
>
> I still think your argument is absurd. but I do admit it is better to
> bottom
> post.
>
> go for it.. we'll keep it friendly :-)
>
>
We could start with your sentence structure and punctuation. Atrocious !
:-)
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 6:49:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Bottom feeder :) 

Civilian}Target

Neil Jones wrote:
> In article <42Due.13011$X57.569574@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
> <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>What about writing replies on top?
>>I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Two main reasons (on the off-chance that you're not just trolling):
>
> a) bottom posting allows sensible quoting so that you can clearly see
> the order the thread developed in. For example, if you were to respond
> now by top-posting, how could someone then quote you while still making
> sense of the sequence?
>
> b) it encourages people like CF to just jot in their two lines at the
> top and then post, without snipping any of the post they're referring
> to. This encourages huge reposts, and actively discourages reasoned
> argument since you've got no clear place to put your responses to
> individual points. All you can do is put a "Me too!" or "LOL" at the
> top, without addressing separate points.
>
>
>>My 2 cents,
>
>
> Well, exactly.
>
> ___
> Neil
> aka HighVis
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 10:24:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Jay" <nospam_javierdl@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:42Due.13011$X57.569574@news20.bellglobal.com...
> What about writing replies on top?
> I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing, but why to do the extra
> effort of going all the way to the bottom of the message when you really
> wouldn't have to, if everyone were to put their replies at the top. Think
> about it. Better yet, picture it! You open the message and that's it! All
> you've got to do now is read ; )

Bottom posting is more or less the traditional (read that old-school if you
like to top post) method of responding. I once was a regular in a gaming
newsgroup where top posters were severely flamed or killfiled. Pretty
extreme, but it goes to show you can't please everyone.
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 5:05:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <3i3rfjFjj51fU1@individual.net>, Civilian_Target
<tadhgp@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Bottom feeder :) 

Sorry, Civ.. it was impossible to see what you were referring to, so
I'll just treat it in the same way as we always do:

/me smiles and pats Civ's head affectionately, before moving quickly on
to next post...

___
Neil
aka HighVis
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:40:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

> What about writing replies on top?

It's wrong.

> I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing, but why to do the
> extra
> effort of going all the way to the bottom of the message when you
> really
> wouldn't have to, if everyone were to put their replies at the top.

Your idea has a fatal assumption: that all the previous stuff must be
repeated, and it is mostly useless. The better idea is to delete useless
stuff and include only stuff you are replying to, a bit at a time. This
way, your replies match paragraphs (etc) of the original.

> Think
> about it. Better yet, picture it! You open the message and that's it!

Again, you assume great masses of junk can be skipped by putting it at
the bottom. It is better to just delete it, include what is relevant, and
reply to that.

> All you've got to do now is read ; )

But all those masses of unwanted junk is filling up cyberspace. It's
better to edit the previous text.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 11:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns9684E6B2E7BC3bbcaravelabooks134@24.24.2.166...
>> What about writing replies on top?
>
> It's wrong.

The demon sits behind a tall stone desk in front of a gate made of bone.
Beyond the gate you hear the screams of the damned; the sound chills you to
the marrow of your being. The demon notices your presence and leans over
the desk, casting a forboding shadow over where you stand cringing. It's
eyes glow brightly and a sneer makes its countenance even more grotesque.
"We've been a bad one haven't we" the demonic gatekeeper cackles from
between broken blood stained teeth. "What brings you to us? Let's see what
the book says' shall we."
Clawed fingers turn pages of human skin as glowing eyes search carefully.
Suddenly the demon gasps, looks up, and its eyes seem to boar into your soul
as it shreaks "You're a...a...a...TOP POSTER!!! Why would you do this???
You could have cheated your friends or made porno flicks or started a war
with Iraq, but you had to write replies on top!!!" The demon stretches one
hand toward you, fingers spread wide as it averts its eyes. "Begone and
torment us no more. Your evil is too great for even this place."
You awaken to find yourself seated in front of your computer. A sly smile
crosses your lips as you click on the Send button.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:44:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

WildStyle24_7 wrote:
> It was a dark and stormy night in alt.games.half-life when Jay exclaimed:
>
> > What about writing replies on top?
>
> Is it such a big deal 'round these parts now? It's a while since I've been
> here regularly, but my impression was that AGHL had a fairly relaxed
> attitude to top posting. (As long as a degree of snipping was taking
> place).
>
Hehe always nice to get a good fight over one the oldest FAQ's on the
usenet
Please bear with them

Cheers

- Peter
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 12:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

It was a dark and stormy night in alt.games.half-life when Jay exclaimed:

> What about writing replies on top?

Is it such a big deal 'round these parts now? It's a while since I've been
here regularly, but my impression was that AGHL had a fairly relaxed
attitude to top posting. (As long as a degree of snipping was taking
place).

> I know, I know, it seems like a very silly thing, but why to do the extra
> effort of going all the way to the bottom of the message when you really
> wouldn't have to, if everyone were to put their replies at the top. Think
> about it.

My personal preference is to reply to individual points "in line" (i.e.
reply/rebuttal below the quote it refers to). Helps me focus on the points
the other person is making, I find.

--
Wildy
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 1:31:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"WildStyle24_7" <wildstyle247@gmail.com> wrote

> > What about writing replies on top?
>
> Is it such a big deal 'round these parts now? It's a while
> since I've been here regularly, but my impression was that
> AGHL had a fairly relaxed attitude to top posting. (As long
> as a degree of snipping was taking place).

Yep, it still *is* fairly relaxed, for most people. Occasionally someone
gets a bee in their bonnet about it though.
--
David
davidfirewater(a)hotmail.com

"OT posts and discussions happen in any forum where
people come to "know" each other. This is no different
than the countless WW2 arguments I've seen between
American's and Brits. I don't recall if those have have
happened in this group or not. But they're just about
everywhere else."
Marlin, AGHL
July 1, 2005 1:31:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"David Firewater" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:fxZwe.13758$ZR1.12461@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "WildStyle24_7" <wildstyle247@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > What about writing replies on top?
> >
> > Is it such a big deal 'round these parts now? It's a while
> > since I've been here regularly, but my impression was that
> > AGHL had a fairly relaxed attitude to top posting. (As long
> > as a degree of snipping was taking place).
>
> Yep, it still *is* fairly relaxed, for most people. Occasionally someone
> gets a bee in their bonnet about it though.

Maybe we need to killfile everyone except "AGHL Elitist Bastards" and it
will be just like the old days.
/me fondly remembers the old days....
:-)

**
Thad[AGHLEB]

p.s.
Hi, Wildy.
I haven't been around for a while, it's good to see familiar faces (so to
speak).
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:25:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

I think top posting is rude and uncivilized.....


On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:59:35 -0500, "Thud" <spyder@barques.com> wrote:

>
>"David Firewater" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
>news:fxZwe.13758$ZR1.12461@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "WildStyle24_7" <wildstyle247@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > > What about writing replies on top?
>> >
>> > Is it such a big deal 'round these parts now? It's a while
>> > since I've been here regularly, but my impression was that
>> > AGHL had a fairly relaxed attitude to top posting. (As long
>> > as a degree of snipping was taking place).
>>
>> Yep, it still *is* fairly relaxed, for most people. Occasionally someone
>> gets a bee in their bonnet about it though.
>
>Maybe we need to killfile everyone except "AGHL Elitist Bastards" and it
>will be just like the old days.
>/me fondly remembers the old days....
>:-)
>
>**
>Thad[AGHLEB]
>
>p.s.
>Hi, Wildy.
>I haven't been around for a while, it's good to see familiar faces (so to
>speak).
>

--


"The Buffalo Theory"


A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest
buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest
and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This
natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because
the general speed and health of the whole group keeps
improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.
In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as
fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of
alcohol, as we know, kill brain cells. But naturally,
it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.
In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the
weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more
efficient machine! That's why you always feel smarter
after a few beers.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 3:22:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

It was a dark and stormy night in alt.games.half-life when Thad exclaimed:

> Maybe we need to killfile everyone except "AGHL Elitist Bastards" and it
> will be just like the old days.
> /me fondly remembers the old days....

Lordy, you just know someone is going to take that seriously :) 

Anyone been doing fake news stories, or inventing fictitious spanish
characters whilst I've been away then? Or did that stop once Bold left...
/wiggles eyebrows conspiratorially

> I haven't been around for a while, it's good to see familiar faces (so to
> speak).

:D  I finally sprang for a copy of HL2 a week or so ago, so I thought I'd
pop along and help out with blast pit questions etc. Nice to see some old
faces, and new people in the place too.

--
Wildy
July 1, 2005 3:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"WildStyle24_7" <wildstyle247@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ij9m5Flrpm1U1@individual.net...
> It was a dark and stormy night in alt.games.half-life when Thad exclaimed:
>
> > Maybe we need to killfile everyone except "AGHL Elitist Bastards" and it
> > will be just like the old days.
> > /me fondly remembers the old days....
>
> Lordy, you just know someone is going to take that seriously :) 

Oh. Yeah, yeah, of *course* I was joking.
I was being funneh!
Hahahahahhaah!
;-)



Seriously, though....

>
> Anyone been doing fake news stories, or inventing fictitious spanish
> characters whilst I've been away then? Or did that stop once Bold left...
> /wiggles eyebrows conspiratorially
>
> > I haven't been around for a while, it's good to see familiar faces (so
to
> > speak).
>
> :D  I finally sprang for a copy of HL2 a week or so ago, so I thought I'd
> pop along and help out with blast pit questions etc. Nice to see some old
> faces, and new people in the place too.

Not me, buddy.
<ramones>
I'm against it!
</ramones>

==
Thad
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 3:28:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

It was a dark and stormy night in alt.games.half-life when Cannon Fodder
exclaimed:

> I think top posting is rude and uncivilized...

What's that saying about old dogs and new tricks again...?

:D  How's the DM in this version, fodder?

--
Wildy
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

In article <3ija2qFlrpm1U2@individual.net>, WildStyle24_7
<wildstyle247@gmail.com> wrote:

> It was a dark and stormy night in alt.games.half-life when Cannon Fodder
> exclaimed:
>
> > I think top posting is rude and uncivilized...
>
> What's that saying about old dogs and new tricks again...?

Ah, getting forgetful... I'm sure there's a helpful mnemonic to remind
you, but it goes something like "You can beat an old dog with a
crowbar, but if it's carrying a rocket-launcher, you'll regret it
pretty damn fast, sonny-boy"...

___
Neil
aka HighVis
!