Suggestion to the Group

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
33 answers Last reply
More about suggestion group
  1. 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
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    Why not just zap the previous message then?
  3. 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
    >
    >
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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?
  7. 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
    >
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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...

    ;-)
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    news:d9fncm$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.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    news:d9fnjv$et4$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
    >
    > "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    > news:d9fncm$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
  15. 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:d9fnjv$et4$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
    > >
    > > "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    > > news:d9fncm$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 :-)
  16. 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.
  17. 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-----
  18. 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-----
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

    "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    news:d9g4ua$j6k$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
    >
    > "Pagan" <adsa@deputysheriff.org> wrote in message
    > news:11bn3fap0cf456d@corp.supernews.com...
    >> "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    >> news:d9fnjv$et4$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
    >> >
    >> > "Paul Good" <Paul.Good@telstrawholesale.com> wrote in message
    >> > news:d9fncm$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 !
    :-)
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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).
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games