Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

To All Newsgroup Posters - Configuration of Replies

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:27:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.

One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.

The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
when you continually follow a thread.

When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have
to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.

I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
to scroll down. This made the most sense.

I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I actually prefer top-posting (and am doing so here because that is also
your preference). However, most of the responses I have seen to this type
of message on other newsgroups indicate a preference for bottom-posting.
Therefore, this has become my "style": (1) I usually bottom-post, with
selective snipping, if no one has previously top-posted; (2) If top-posting
has occurred first, then I follow suit; (3) I will occasionally interleave
responses within a message (leaving the > marker to indicate messages from
previous readers). I agree that it is a real annoyance to have to
continually scroll down to the bottom, especially if it is a long message
and there has been no attempt to reduce the length by snipping.

MaryL


"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and all
> newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally and
> that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have to
> spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have to
> scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that I
> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have
> to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
> to scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.

End. How many start a book at the last page and read forward?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that I
> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.

IMHO the most polite thing to do is follow the method used by the majority
of the group. It's most annoying when some newbie to a group pops in and
just does things his/her way. It's plain rude. Be considerate of those who
frequent the group and remember the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the
Romans."

It's simple advice and it solves the problem.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you don't think what you have to say is important, by all means
bottom post.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- commented courteously ...

Usually, I interleave and snip, but as was said, I try to
lurk for awhile in NGs so I learn what is accepted
practice and do likewise.

> If you don't think what you have to say is important, by
> all means bottom post.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers
December 24, 2004 12:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use the FreeAgent reader.
FreeAgent top-posts.
Who am I to argue ?





On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:48:59 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
>> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that I
>> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
>
>IMHO the most polite thing to do is follow the method used by the majority
>of the group. It's most annoying when some newbie to a group pops in and
>just does things his/her way. It's plain rude. Be considerate of those who
>frequent the group and remember the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the
>Romans."
>
>It's simple advice and it solves the problem.

<rj>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:05:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You guys that do it wrong are stupid, recalcitrant and ugly. Always
were, always will be.


--
Frank ess

PS: there is a little Windows utility that corrects (or exacerbates,
depending on which kind of bad you are) the OE Top-Post Orientation:
OE-QuoteFix
December 24, 2004 1:09:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of
uniformity."

Dream On.... :o )

(Posted again at the end for bottom feeders..)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and all
> newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally and
> that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have to
> spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have to
> scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that I
> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.

"I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of
uniformity."

Dream On... :o )

(Posted again at the top for the other 50%..)
December 24, 2004 1:23:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:

what they're trying to

I don't

> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.

care

>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.

where other

say

>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.

people post their

>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have
> to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.

stuff, because I'm smart

>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
> to scroll down. This made the most sense.

enough to

>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.

figger out

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, measekite@yahoo.com
says...
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.

Here we go again...

BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is bottom-posting.
SO, it's an internet standard. This is usually only an issue with
those that are new to usenet. Once you have tried to sort out what
someone is replying to a few thousand times, you'll learn as well.

Further, top-posters seem to be extremely taken with not snipping
any text below their reply, a horrible waste of bandwidth, not
to mention making it even more difficult to determine specifically
what they are responding to in the original.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:27:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Here we go again. I am not new to usenet, but I prefer top posting. I
prefer it because of the reasons stated in the original post. I top post,
bottom post and post within the message depending on the content and which
side of the bed I got up on that day.

You say that top-posters seem to be extremely taken with not snipping any
test below their reply. Bottom posters are worse in that you generally have
to scroll down through 10 pages of consecutive replies to get to their 3
word response at the bottom. If bottom posters were diligent about
snipping, it wouldn't be so bad, but most will claim that they snip, but in
reality, don't - except when it is a thread about bottom posting. Then they
are diligent about it because it is foremost in their minds.

I believe that the problem will never go away, so just ride with the flow
and don't get so anal about it. It doesn't really cause anyone to implode
or cause the weather to change. Relax!

Don Dunlap
"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c35ab0ac0c56e75989d60@news.verizon.net...
> In article <2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com
> says...
>> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
>> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
>> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> Here we go again...
>
> BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is bottom-posting.
> SO, it's an internet standard. This is usually only an issue with
> those that are new to usenet. Once you have tried to sort out what
> someone is replying to a few thousand times, you'll learn as well.
>
> Further, top-posters seem to be extremely taken with not snipping
> any text below their reply, a horrible waste of bandwidth, not
> to mention making it even more difficult to determine specifically
> what they are responding to in the original.
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:36:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>There are two ways to configure your software for replies
>>on this and all newsgroups.
What software are you assuming that I am using?

I use Microsoft Outlook Express. I am prepared to be told that I am
mistaken but I cannot see any way to affect whether my replies appear before
or after earlier responses.

Regards
Keith
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Howard wrote:
> In article <2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
>> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
>> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about
>> equally and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> Here we go again...
>
> BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is bottom-posting.
> SO, it's an internet standard.

Can you provide a reference for that RFC, please?
I briefly looked for one when the question was first asked, but I couldn't
find one.

David
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material
> up front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the
> latest stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new
> stuff when you continually follow a thread.
>

Then there is the third method of placing the response within the
original message where it would make the best sense.

> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first
> have to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not
> have to scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow
> that I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of
> uniformity.

I believe that communication is less of a science than an art. As an
art, it will never be static and pined down by a set of rules. I follow the
cat's philosophy of live. If it feels good do it. In this context, if it
works do it.

The objective is to communicate, not to follow a set of rules. A rule
is only good if it improves the communication. Rules demanding top or bottom
posting do not improve communication, they just increase the amount of it.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> writes:

> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.

A: Top posting.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

The choice isn't 'top or bottom'; the choice is "top" vs. "Respond
immediately below the individual piece you're responding too, and edit
out parts that aren't relevant any longer". For the extended
discussions on Usenet, I find top-posting completely impossible to
follow, and normal quoting and inserted responses very easy to follow.

Remember that lots of people first see a thread somewhere in the
middle, and that people often see the messages out of order.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:29:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What is the method used by the majority in this group? It seems to be top
posting, but I believe that you would disagree. I haven't conducted a
scientific study, but only observed.

Don Dunlap

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3NydnSHJPePWg1HcRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
>> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that I
>> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
>
> IMHO the most polite thing to do is follow the method used by the majority
> of the group. It's most annoying when some newbie to a group pops in and
> just does things his/her way. It's plain rude. Be considerate of those
> who frequent the group and remember the old saying, "When in Rome, do as
> the Romans."
>
> It's simple advice and it solves the problem.
>
> --
>
> Rob
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:31:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:332ahqF3sit8sU1@individual.net...
SNIP
>> BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is
>> bottom-posting.
>> SO, it's an internet standard.
>
> Can you provide a reference for that RFC, please?
> I briefly looked for one when the question was first asked, but I
> couldn't find one.

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

And a quote from that:
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include
just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving
context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Bart
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
[]
-----------------------------
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original.
Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
-----------------------------

Sounds clear enough to me. Thanks, Bart.

David
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So it's more a guidline than a hard and fast rule???

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:41cbfe06$0$6218$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:332ahqF3sit8sU1@individual.net...
> SNIP
>>> BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is bottom-posting.
>>> SO, it's an internet standard.
>>
>> Can you provide a reference for that RFC, please?
>> I briefly looked for one when the question was first asked, but I
>> couldn't find one.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
> And a quote from that:
> 3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
> enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
> sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
> Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
> postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
> response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
> helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
>
> Bart
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:332ahqF3sit8sU1@individual.net...
> SNIP
>
>>> BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is bottom-posting.
>>> SO, it's an internet standard.
>>
>>
>> Can you provide a reference for that RFC, please?
>> I briefly looked for one when the question was first asked, but I
>> couldn't find one.
>
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
> And a quote from that:
> 3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
> enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
> sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
> Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
> postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
> response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
> helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
>
> Bart
>

You must have started reading from the bottom of the rfc and not read
the top. The top says:

Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:31:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In fact, the second word IS guideline (not RULE), so anyone spouting the RFC
is just, well, spouting.

Particularly since those RFCs are out of date, not maintained and were the
opinion of a small number of people in the early days of the 'net.

Mostly, they were writtten for when 'speedy' was 2400 baud.

Tom
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:hJTyd.87187$K7.20165@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> So it's more a guidline than a hard and fast rule???
>
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:41cbfe06$0$6218$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:332ahqF3sit8sU1@individual.net...
>> SNIP
>>>> BTW, there is an RFC that states the correct method is bottom-posting.
>>>> SO, it's an internet standard.
>>>
>>> Can you provide a reference for that RFC, please?
>>> I briefly looked for one when the question was first asked, but I
>>> couldn't find one.
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>>
>> And a quote from that:
>> 3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
>> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
>> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
>> enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
>> sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
>> Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
>> postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
>> response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
>> helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
>>
>> Bart
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:33:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Keith Sheppard" <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:CiSyd.89$LF5.25@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>There are two ways to configure your software for replies
>>>on this and all newsgroups.
> What software are you assuming that I am using?
>
> I use Microsoft Outlook Express. I am prepared to be told that I am
> mistaken but I cannot see any way to affect whether my replies
> appear before
> or after earlier responses.

Does your keyboard have arrow keys?

Bart
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:33:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

santa's ass commented courteously ...

> Another good reason to top-post is that is the easiest
way
> to have a conversation when using outlook express as the
> newsreader. I'm sure it's quite common

I hate to stick my head into the lion's mouth about OE and
top posting, but in most Usenet places, OE is reviled
precisely because it defaults to top posting.

I think, though, that what is most important in NG
messaging is to understand what the OP has said and be
well understood yourself. I don't think that there is any
one way to accomplish those goals. So, sometimes I top
post, sometimes bottom post, sometimes snip, and sometimes
interleave my reply text.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary ...

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:46:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since when has usenet been a book? Oh and that would be around a billion
people in China for starters.

>
> End. How many start a book at the last page and read forward?
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 3:56:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Dunlap" <dondunlaprove@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:7caf2$41cc521e$4523429d$25929@allthenewsgroups.com...
> "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3NydnSHJPePWg1HcRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>>
>> IMHO the most polite thing to do is follow the method used by the
>> majority of the group. It's most annoying when some newbie to a group
>> pops in and just does things his/her way. It's plain rude. Be
>> considerate of those who frequent the group and remember the old saying,
>> "When in Rome, do as the Romans."
>>
>> It's simple advice and it solves the problem.
>>
> What is the method used by the majority in this group? It seems to be top
> posting, but I believe that you would disagree. I haven't conducted a
> scientific study, but only observed.
>


This group does seem to have a fairly even mix, but the regulars seem to
prefer bottom posting so I've chosen to do the same, after all it is their
advice I seek. Common since would dictate that it's not a good idea to piss
of the folk from whom you seek advice.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:greos0t11r4pb5d44kpa2iue59s85vhf83@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:48:59 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
>>> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
>>> I
>>> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
>>
>>IMHO the most polite thing to do is follow the method used by the majority
>>of the group. It's most annoying when some newbie to a group pops in and
>>just does things his/her way. It's plain rude. Be considerate of those
>>who
>>frequent the group and remember the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the
>>Romans."
>>
>>It's simple advice and it solves the problem.
>
>I use the FreeAgent reader.
> FreeAgent top-posts.
> Who am I to argue ?
>

It's the poor craftsman who blames his tools.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:10:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Dunlap" <dondunlaprove@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:7caf2$41cc521e$4523429d$25929@allthenewsgroups.com...
> What is the method used by the majority in this group? It seems to be top
> posting, but I believe that you would disagree. I haven't conducted a
> scientific study, but only observed.

I've been on and off Usenet since 1986 (scarily enough), and I pretty much
reply in whichever way the previous poster did. If they top-post, I top-post
to keep the flow of the message. Same with bottom-posting. However, if I am
replying to a top-post like this but I only keep your reply, I'll tend to
bottom-post. It's just something to give people a reason to get annoyed and
self-righteous either way.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:13:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frankly Charlotte, I don't give a damn..........

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and all
> newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally and
> that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have to
> spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have to
> scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that I
> at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I use the FreeAgent reader.
>> FreeAgent top-posts.
>> Who am I to argue ?
>
> It's the poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Then why don't you see more camera phone pictures in fashion magazines?
Hmmmm?
December 24, 2004 4:32:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have
> to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
> to scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.

In another NG, I sometimes posted a comment at the top, when it seemed
ot make sense. I got flamed every time. I finally decided to
unsubscribe to that NG.

Now, I often post in the middle, when that is appropriate. And I often
snip out the parts of the original that my comment doesn't relate to.

My suggestion is to use common sense.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:52:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups.

Top posting is considered rude, as is quoting any more of the previous text
than absolutely necessary. I see no reason why rpd should do anything
different than what is considered acceptable on other news groups.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:55:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:53:59 -0700, "<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote:

>I use the FreeAgent reader.
>FreeAgent top-posts.
>Who am I to argue ?

Agent doesn't top-post, it puts the cursor at the top so you can start snipping
non-relevant text before inter- or bottom-posting.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 5:18:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:kfydnSGM2pcxxlHcRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Don Dunlap" <dondunlaprove@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:7caf2$41cc521e$4523429d$25929@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> What is the method used by the majority in this group? It seems to be
>> top posting, but I believe that you would disagree. I haven't conducted
>> a scientific study, but only observed.
>
> I've been on and off Usenet since 1986 (scarily enough), and I pretty much
> reply in whichever way the previous poster did. If they top-post, I
> top-post to keep the flow of the message. Same with bottom-posting.
> However, if I am replying to a top-post like this but I only keep your
> reply, I'll tend to bottom-post. It's just something to give people a
> reason to get annoyed and self-righteous either way.
>
I've been on Usenet for about the same length of time or longer and I post
the same as you. Top, bottom and in between. Life is too short to get
pissed off or get annoyed for something as trivial as top posting.

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 5:20:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:41CC60BB.3040300@cloud9.net...
> measekite wrote:
> Snip

> In another NG, I sometimes posted a comment at the top, when it seemed ot
> make sense. I got flamed every time. I finally decided to unsubscribe to
> that NG.
>
> Now, I often post in the middle, when that is appropriate. And I often
> snip out the parts of the original that my comment doesn't relate to.
>
> My suggestion is to use common sense.

Common sense is the most uncommon thing in the world. What is common sense
to some is stupidity to others.

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 5:33:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I top post, those who don't like it should feel free to filter my posts.
That being said, I rarely read bottom posted messages since I get BORED
scrolling thru endless posts of messages I'VE ALREADY READ! If bottom
posters actually DID snip all but a little referential material it'd be
different, but the vast majority don't. Actually I think this is stupid
question that has been hashed over a million times and you should be ashamed
of yourself for asking it just as I am ashamed for replying.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have
> to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
> to scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
December 24, 2004 5:39:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
> to scroll down. This made the most sense.
>

And when did you start reading books from the bottom of the page to the top?
How does this make any sense? What people should do is SNIP OUT the parts
of the post that does apply that they are replying to so you don't have to
scroll very far.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 6:02:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1103899319.256960.176970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If you don't think what you have to say is important, by all means
> bottom post.

More importantly, don't snip the long winded OP and then bottom post
the reply :-) Most annoying.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 6:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gregory Blank wrote:

> More importantly, don't snip the long winded OP and then bottom post
> the reply :-) Most annoying.
>

That **is** most annoying...

I bottom post, but I snip so nobody has to scroll down 125 lines to
see the two lines I added.. I place my text directly under what
I'm replying to.

The non snipping bottom posters are no doubt the reason many usenet
followers hate bottom posting in general.

FWIW, if I scroll down twice with my mouse wheel and haven't come
to any original text, I usually quit reading and go to the next message.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 6:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In news:2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of
> uniformity.
>

If your conversational model is of sequential uninterrupted monologues, I
can see why you'd prefer top-posting.

If, like most people I know, you and your conversational partners prefer a
more spirited give-and-take, the comments-in-the-middle form makes a lot
more sense.

Also, there's no reason to include the entire text of a message when you
post a followup or a comment; anybody who's following the thread has
already read it, and anybody joining in should go back and look at it
before commenting.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
December 24, 2004 7:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:10sodppmf1beb9f@news.supernews.com...
>
> FWIW, if I scroll down twice with my mouse wheel and haven't come
> to any original text, I usually quit reading and go to the next message.
>
.... and hopefully it's a top posting, a lot easier to read :o )
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12/24/04 3:27 AM, in article
2iRyd.2113$5R.326@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:


> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.

You will definitely hear what others think; but you will not ever get a
consensus! Unless Usenet were capable of applying some sort of filter to
filter out one type of reply or or another, top posters and bottom posters
will forever think that their method is best. Both types of posters should
at least delete some of the extraneous previous replies.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:59:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> IMHO the most polite thing to do is follow the method used by the majority
> of the group. It's most annoying when some newbie to a group pops in and
> just does things his/her way. It's plain rude. Be considerate of those who
> frequent the group and remember the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the
> Romans."
>
> It's simple advice and it solves the problem.

Snipping's the thing wherein we'll catch the conscience of the King.

Will-the-Bard said it first.....

It's fine when a newbie posts however his or her newsreader is
configured. What's not fine is being pilloried for it. A bit of
education can help. However, what's way worse is an old timer who top
posts, doesn't snip, and is boorish about the whole thing. Imo, natch.

Besides, there are some kooks who scan all NG's just to pop in and pop
off rudely about posting etiquette.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 8:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> Also, there's no reason to include the entire text of a message when you
> post a followup or a comment; anybody who's following the thread has
> already read it, and anybody joining in should go back and look at it
> before commenting.
>
I'd modify that by saying there's every reason to exclude all text that
isn't relevant.

My taking 3 seconds to trim posts will save hundreds of others some
small fraction of a second. It does add up.

--
John McWilliams
December 24, 2004 8:02:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My PC is configured to put all replies at the top of the page, with the old
messages below. To me, it makes sense.

Morton



measekite wrote:

> There are two ways to configure your software for replies on this and
> all newsgroups. I have seen both on this newsgroup used about equally
> and that makes it difficult to read longer threads.
>
> One way is to place your reply at the end with the previous material up
> front. You then have to scroll down to the bottom to read the latest
> stuff. A pain if you continually follow threads.
>
> The other method is to place your reply at the top with the previously
> quoted material below. This makes it easier to read only the new stuff
> when you continually follow a thread.
>
> When people use both methods it makes it difficult since you first have
> to spend time to acertain where the new stuff is.
>
> I started out placing my reply at the end but switched to placing the
> reply at the beginning so people who followed the thread would not have
> to scroll down. This made the most sense.
>
> I would like to know what others think. While I would rather see a
> consensus of placing the reply at the top and have everyone follow that
> I at least would like to see a consensus and have some kind of uniformity.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 8:47:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Dunlap wrote:

> What is the method used by the majority in this group? It seems to be top
> posting, but I believe that you would disagree. I haven't conducted a
> scientific study, but only observed.
>
>
If you count trolls and Tony Spadaro, top posting has the numbers. But
if you do a qualitative analysis, you might come to a different conclusion.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:36:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <hJTyd.87187$K7.20165@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, no@email.com
says...
> So it's more a guidline than a hard and fast rule???

For noobs, it seems like more of a guideline, for those that
have been on Usenet for 10-20 years, it's a rule.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:36:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That is not a true statement. Many that I know have been on usenet for 15
years or more (including myself) and bottom posting is an option, not
mandatory. Your statement smacks of snobbery.

Don Dunlap

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c361d9e1bc54494989d61@news.verizon.net...
> In article <hJTyd.87187$K7.20165@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, no@email.com
> says...
>> So it's more a guidline than a hard and fast rule???
>
> For noobs, it seems like more of a guideline, for those that
> have been on Usenet for 10-20 years, it's a rule.
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:45:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <tKSdnTWB59DAwVHcRVn-gw@speakeasy.net>, j.t.r.u..p.i..n...
@speakeasy.net says...
>
> "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>I use the FreeAgent reader.
> >> FreeAgent top-posts.
> >> Who am I to argue ?
> >
> > It's the poor craftsman who blames his tools.
>
> Then why don't you see more camera phone pictures in fashion magazines?
> Hmmmm?

You must have been on your school debate team. That sort of logic
takes years of practice to master.

:-)
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c361faaaa245f5a989d64@news.verizon.net...
> In article <tKSdnTWB59DAwVHcRVn-gw@speakeasy.net>, j.t.r.u..p.i..n...
> @speakeasy.net says...
>>
>> "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>I use the FreeAgent reader.
>> >> FreeAgent top-posts.
>> >> Who am I to argue ?
>> >
>> > It's the poor craftsman who blames his tools.
>>
>> Then why don't you see more camera phone pictures in fashion magazines?
>> Hmmmm?
>
> You must have been on your school debate team. That sort of logic
> takes years of practice to master.

We would also have accepted "because of the difficulty in finding 3mm UV
filters."
!