Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Top Bottom Post Issue

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 10:40:33 PM

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

Top Post Please.

I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
will honor the request.

More about : top bottom post issue

Anonymous
December 24, 2004 10:40:34 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place his/her
> preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will honor
> the request.

C'mon, you honestly expect people to do that? Folks will still do whatever
they want and there will always be silly debates about it.

Mark
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 10:47:58 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place his/her
> preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will honor
> the request.

Why?
Related resources
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 10:58:34 PM

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

Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.

Harvey wrote:

> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Top Post Please.
>>
>>I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place his/her
>>preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will honor
>>the request.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 11:27:57 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> Don't Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> will honor the request.

No, thanks. Please don't top post.

Please let's keep the sequence of discussions flowing as in a book or
diary, the most recent entries at the bottom. Yes, trim so that things
fit on one "page". Follow the Usenet guidelines.

Thanks,
David
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 11:34:54 PM

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

In article <Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> will honor the request.

Your nuts.
--
LOL.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 11:34:55 PM

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

"Udie Lafing" <banishalthought@wastedtime.com> wrote in message
news:banishalthought->
>
> Your nuts.
> --
> LOL.

What is it you like about his nuts?

Linda
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 11:34:56 PM

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

Linda_N wrote:

>
> "Udie Lafing" <banishalthought@wastedtime.com> wrote in message
> news:banishalthought->
>>
>> Your nuts.
>> --
>> LOL.
>
> What is it you like about his nuts?

I don't think he'll have a clue what YOU'RE talking about :-)

Ugh... Usually, I make it a practice to never get involved in threads
about grammar or whether to top or bottom post. They really aren't
productive.

It must be the season or something :-) :-)
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 11:37:29 PM

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

In article <Kx_yd.2286$5R.1217@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
> thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.
>

I almost thought you were serious.
--
LOL.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 12:21:23 AM

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

In article <Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> will honor the request.

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.

> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

> > A: Top-posting.

> > > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 12:35:57 AM

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

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> will honor the request.

Oh, goody - a *third* option. That will make for instant peace and harmony.
Yes, sir.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 1:57:34 AM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Top Post Please.
>
> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> will honor the request.

For god's sake.
I think we have better things to worry about.
Go away.
December 25, 2004 2:08:35 AM

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

Depends, if you need to re-read all the text posted each and every reply
because you have a short retention, then indeed top posting is evil, if on
the other hand you read each post in succession, then you don't have to read
all the text before moving on and you don't have to scroll down to the
bottom to read one line, then top posting is good. If text has been edited
out to refrain from scrolling down, then what is the point of bottom posting
since there is no "thread" to speak of?

Merry Christmas

Jean

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:MPG.1c36444e486551fc989d6a@news.verizon.net...
> In article <Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
> > Top Post Please.
> >
> > I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> > his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> > will honor the request.
>
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
>
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
> > > A: Top-posting.
>
> > > > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:52:11 AM

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

Jim Townsend wrote:

> > Ugh... Usually, I make it a practice to never get involved in threads
> about grammar or whether to top or bottom post. They really aren't
> productive.
>
> It must be the season or something :-) :-)
>
Possibly it's the vacuum created by the disappearance of a few loons.
South for the Winter, most likely.

--
John McWilliams

Help stamp out gratuitous apostrophe's and exclamation point's!!!
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 11:27:05 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:58:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:


> >>Top Post Please.
> >>
> >>I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place his/her
> >>preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will honor
> >>the request.

> Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
> thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.

Only evil people top post.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 11:27:06 AM

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

Oh my god! That explains the nickname. Hello I am Satan's Raisin. How are
you?

John


"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:7c2ps0pr25blle0puainrh93c7prnajkgm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:58:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >>Top Post Please.
>> >>
>> >>I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
>> >>his/her
>> >>preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will
>> >>honor
>> >>the request.
>
>> Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
>> thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.
>
> Only evil people top post.
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 11:27:06 AM

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

Oh! goodie....I get so little opportunity to be evil...money being the route
of it and all.


"Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:7c2ps0pr25blle0puainrh93c7prnajkgm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:58:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >>Top Post Please.
> > >>
> > >>I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
his/her
> > >>preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will
honor
> > >>the request.
>
> > Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
> > thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.
>
> Only evil people top post.
>
>
>
December 25, 2004 11:35:13 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:40:33 GMT
In message <Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Top Post Please.

No thank you.

> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> will honor the request.

(I forgot usenet advanced reading 304:
always read ALL threads before replying to anything. ;-)

Jeff
December 25, 2004 11:37:45 AM

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

(USENET NOTICE A-726-CT-92: Posting rules are hereby
lifted for anyone who cares to reply to my messages.)

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:58:34 GMT
In message <Kx_yd.2286$5R.1217@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
> thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.
>
> Harvey wrote:
>
> > "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rg_yd.2510$wZ2.2132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>Top Post Please.
> >>
> >>I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place his/her
> >>preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will honor
> >>the request.
> >
> >
> > Why?

Oh no... say it isn't so...

Jeff
December 25, 2004 11:41:48 AM

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

WAIT! Didn't the faq strictly forbid evil posts?

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 08:27:05 +1100
In message <7c2ps0pr25blle0puainrh93c7prnajkgm@4ax.com>
Ken Oaf <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:58:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Top Post Please.
> > > >
> > > > I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place his/her
> > > > preference for future replies at the very top and then we all will honor
> > > > the request.
>
> > Because the original poster took the time to say something he/she
> > thought important or relevant to others and requested common courtesy.
>
> Only evil people top post.

WAIT! Didn't the faq strictly forbid evil posts?
December 25, 2004 11:50:24 AM

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

Please?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 20:27:57 -0000
In message <333ceeF3shu1cU1@individual.net>
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

> measekite wrote:
> > Don't <trim> Please.
> >
> > I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
> > his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
> > will honor the request.
>
> No, <trim>. <trim> top post.

> Please let's keep the <trim> discussions flowing <trim>
> Yes, <trim> so that things fit on one "page".

How many things fit on a virtual "page" today?

(FRED,
I KNOW YOU
ARE READING
USING A SAT
PHONE IN
AFRICA. CAN
YOU FOLLOW
THIS THREAD?
JEFF)

> Follow <trim>

Would someone please *please* point me to threaded multiple author
books and diary's in a library so I can compare them to non-threaded
multiple author books and diary's side by side? (This IS getting
confusing...)

Jeff
December 25, 2004 11:53:19 AM

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

Jim writes:

> > > Your <trim>s.
> > > --
> > > LOL.
> >
> > What is it you like about his <snips>s?
>
> I don't think he'll have a clue what YOU'RE talking about :-)

Heck, *I* don't have a clue...

> Ugh... Usually, I make it a practice to never get involved in threads
> about grammar or whether to top or bottom post. They really aren't
> productive.
>
> It must be the season or something :-) :-)

We have a winner! LOL

Merry Christmas!

Jeff
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 12:11:22 PM

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

In article <kM5zd.41613$GK5.1995599@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:

> If text has been edited out to refrain from scrolling down, then what
> is the point of bottom posting since there is no "thread" to speak of?

Ahhhh! Comparative newbies everywhere. <big grin>

To first answer your question above...

Bottom posting, like a conversation, is the "answer" to what was quoted above
it. This convention was established and was widely practiced before there
even WAS a world-wide web and well before most participants here even had a
computer in their home, much less posted articles to usenet.

This top-posting nonsense, particularly if it includes UNedited quoting from
numerous previous articles, was introduced by early email applications. By
virtue of the fact that modern email apps also include a news capability, we
have seen this annoying "feature" gain a foothold in usenet and appears to be
proliferating. It's too bad, really. The signal:noise ratio is MUCH better
and the newsgroup MUCH easier to read if good quoting is done. Sadly, most
are too lazy (and a few are too stupid, I fear) to do it, though.

As to your contention that much of the "thread" has been removed from an
edited message:

A "thread" is a series of articles pertaining to or discussing a common topic.
It was never intended that a single article copy/quote all articles to date.
Quite the opposite. Quoting WITHOUT editing is considered bad form. In fact,
it is worse form than not quoting at all.

The purpose of quoting is to refresh the memory of the reader of the salient
parts of what has already been said, so that the NEW text will be in context
and, hopefully, make sense. This should be done with a MINIMUM of quoted
material.

> Merry Christmas

Thank-you. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 1:13:11 PM

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

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote
>>>
>>> "Udie Lafing" wrote in message>
>>>
>>> Your nuts.
>>> --
>>> LOL.
>>
>> Linda_N wrote:
>>
>> What is it you like about his nuts?
>
> I don't think he'll have a clue what YOU'RE talking about :-)
>
> Ugh... Usually, I make it a practice to never get involved in threads
> about grammar or whether to top or bottom post. They really aren't
> productive.
>
> It must be the season or something :-) :-)
>
>
Yeah and perhaps he was in the season too and was referring to 'nut'meg.
hahaha.

I don't normally comment on grammatical errors either since doing so would
be hypocritical (I'm no perfect speaker/writer of English by any means)
unless there is a chance it will be a good laugh for all, including the
original poster. His statement was just too juicy with potential laughs to
pass up.

I'm glad you had a clue what I was talking about, and hope you got a chuckle
from it hahah.

Linda
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:45:37 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 20:27:57 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>> Don't Top Post Please.
>>
>> I guess one way to solve this is for the original poster to place
>> his/her preference for future replies at the very top and then we all
>> will honor the request.
>
>No, thanks. Please don't top post.
>
>Please let's keep the sequence of discussions flowing as in a book or
>diary, the most recent entries at the bottom.

Your analogy doesn't make sense. The discussion is with regards to the
placement of quotes, not new material. In a book, quotes are often
placed after the new text. These are called either footnotes or
appendixes.


andyt
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 3:28:36 PM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
[]
> Your analogy doesn't make sense. The discussion is with regards to the
> placement of quotes, not new material. In a book, quotes are often
> placed after the new text. These are called either footnotes or
> appendixes.

In a book, I expect to read the thrust of the argument in a single thread,
and that items which are footnotes or appendices are items which are not
required to follow the course of the discussion. In news postings, I
would expect footnotes or appendices to be referenced as URLs thus
requiring the reader to take extra action, just like a book where you may
have the extra action of turning to the back of the book or whatever.

Happy Boxing Day,
David
December 28, 2004 2:12:15 PM

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

> > If text has been edited out to refrain from scrolling down, then what
> > is the point of bottom posting since there is no "thread" to speak of?
>
> Ahhhh! Comparative newbies everywhere. <big grin>

I see, not only Al Gore claims the birth of the Internet ;-) If by a
newbie, it means more than 35 years in the IT business, then count me in.
As a matter of fact, I no longer use my VT05, using OE and windoze to do
most of what I need to do with a computer just makes sense.

> To first answer your question above...
>
> Bottom posting, like a conversation, is the "answer" to what was quoted
above
> it. This convention was established and was widely practiced before there
> even WAS a world-wide web and well before most participants here even had
a
> computer in their home, much less posted articles to usenet.

Agreed a linear conversation IS the way to go, but to repeat text over and
over in each posting is somewhat of a waste. When I read some threads, I
find it much easier to read each new idea with each new post right there on
the top without having to scroll down further and further each time and
please don't bring up the need to be in context like it was gospel, a thread
going on for many many days loses it's interest very fast.

> The purpose of quoting is to refresh the memory of the reader of the
salient
> parts of what has already been said, so that the NEW text will be in
context
> and, hopefully, make sense. This should be done with a MINIMUM of quoted
> material.

Could make sense to you and me, but it could be edited to change completely
the way the "conversation" was/is going. The way I see it, a quick comment
can be done on the top, to answer specific points, then it makes sense to
answer each point after quoted text, preferably edited.

Jean
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:10:32 PM

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

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:11:22 -0600, Jim Redelfs
<jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

>In article <kM5zd.41613$GK5.1995599@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:
>
>> If text has been edited out to refrain from scrolling down, then what
>> is the point of bottom posting since there is no "thread" to speak of?
>
>Ahhhh! Comparative newbies everywhere. <big grin>
>
>To first answer your question above...
>
>Bottom posting, like a conversation, is the "answer" to what was quoted above
>it. This convention was established and was widely practiced before there
>even WAS a world-wide web and well before most participants here even had a
>computer in their home, much less posted articles to usenet.

How often, in spoken conversation, do you quote back to someone what
they just said before giving your reply? Therefore your analogy is
bogus. In a top posted thread, new material is available imediately
and the original post to which the respondent is replying represents
what *they* said beforehand.


andyt
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:14:38 PM

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

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:28:36 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>[]
>> Your analogy doesn't make sense. The discussion is with regards to the
>> placement of quotes, not new material. In a book, quotes are often
>> placed after the new text. These are called either footnotes or
>> appendixes.
>
>In a book, I expect to read the thrust of the argument in a single thread,
>and that items which are footnotes or appendices are items which are not
>required to follow the course of the discussion. In news postings, I
>would expect footnotes or appendices to be referenced as URLs thus
>requiring the reader to take extra action, just like a book where you may
>have the extra action of turning to the back of the book or whatever.

Well in the case of a top post, you *surely* can't expect everyone to
create a web page for the text they propose to 'quote' and then
provide a URL to it?! No, clearly not. So instead they merely provide
the reference quote helpfully at the bottom of their post, should it
be required.


andyt
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:27:40 PM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
[]
> Well in the case of a top post, you *surely* can't expect everyone to
> create a web page for the text they propose to 'quote' and then
> provide a URL to it?! No, clearly not. So instead they merely provide
> the reference quote helpfully at the bottom of their post, should it
> be required.

No, I didn't mean that. Text from previous messages in the thread would
be quoted in-line, just as I have done above. Of course, the previous
text should be trimmed so that only the relevant part is left. The items
that I would expect to see as URLs are "footnotes or appendices", which in
a book would be elsewhere than the main body of the text, such as a
reference to RFC 1305 or whatever, such as:

either:
For more details in NTP V3 see: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1305.html

or:
.....If you look in RFC 1305 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1305.html) you
will find that ....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:27:41 PM

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

Well I much prefer the posting of new text at the TOP of the post for very
PRACTICAL reasons: This way I can immediately tell if the exchange has any
interest for me without scrolling - if I can't figure out what the reference
is to or if I want to see the full original text, I can then take the time
to scroll down to take a look. This is particularly convenient when looking
at multiple responses within a long thread where posting new text at the
bottom of each response requires a bunch of time-wasting scrolling past
stuff you've probably already seen. Personally, I don't care what
convention is or has been - base your choice on pragmatic, practical
reasoning. For me, that means putting new text at the top. You may feel
otherwise, and if so I suggest you do it however you feel comfortable and
expect others to do the same.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:27:42 PM

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

top/bottom posting threads are the longest threads on usenet :) 

I agree with TOP - for same reasons "Image..." documented so well.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:13:07 -0500, "imagejunkie" <nh@nh.net> wrote:

>Well I much prefer the posting of new text at the TOP of the post for very
>PRACTICAL reasons: This way I can immediately tell if the exchange has any
>interest for me without scrolling - if I can't figure out what the reference
>is to or if I want to see the full original text, I can then take the time
>to scroll down to take a look. This is particularly convenient when looking
>at multiple responses within a long thread where posting new text at the
>bottom of each response requires a bunch of time-wasting scrolling past
>stuff you've probably already seen. Personally, I don't care what
>convention is or has been - base your choice on pragmatic, practical
>reasoning. For me, that means putting new text at the top. You may feel
>otherwise, and if so I suggest you do it however you feel comfortable and
>expect others to do the same.
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 8:18:44 PM

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

imagejunkie wrote:

> Well I much prefer the posting of new text at the TOP of the post for very
> PRACTICAL reasons: This way I can immediately tell if the exchange has any
> interest for me without scrolling - if I can't figure out what the reference
> is to or if I want to see the full original text, I can then take the time
> to scroll down to take a look. This is particularly convenient when looking
> at multiple responses within a long thread where posting new text at the
> bottom of each response requires a bunch of time-wasting scrolling past
> stuff you've probably already seen. Personally, I don't care what
> convention is or has been - base your choice on pragmatic, practical
> reasoning. For me, that means putting new text at the top. You may feel
> otherwise, and if so I suggest you do it however you feel comfortable and
> expect others to do the same.
>

Of course this is convenient for you, as you imply you read threads
starting in the middle.

If one reads via threaded, from the top, bottom posting *with trimming*
is faster as well as conventional.

It's the snipping - or lack thereof- that makes reading difficult
regardless of where the reply is.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 9:43:36 PM

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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:27:40 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>[]
>> Well in the case of a top post, you *surely* can't expect everyone to
>> create a web page for the text they propose to 'quote' and then
>> provide a URL to it?! No, clearly not. So instead they merely provide
>> the reference quote helpfully at the bottom of their post, should it
>> be required.
>
>No, I didn't mean that. Text from previous messages in the thread would
>be quoted in-line, just as I have done above. Of course, the previous
>text should be trimmed so that only the relevant part is left. The items
>that I would expect to see as URLs are "footnotes or appendices", which in
>a book would be elsewhere than the main body of the text, such as a
>reference to RFC 1305 or whatever, such as:
>
>either:
>For more details in NTP V3 see: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1305.html
>
>or:
>....If you look in RFC 1305 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1305.html) you
>will find that ....

Then I am correct in pointing out that you analogy doesn't work, since
quotes of what other people just said do not ever appear in a book. So
to compare the position of quotes in a response to the flow of a book
is not a valid comparison and is misleading.


andyt
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:32:04 PM

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

if you follow multiple posts in a thread by many different posters you
will find yourself scrolling past stuff you have read many times. Al
you really need is the answer.

Andy Turner wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:11:22 -0600, Jim Redelfs
><jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>In article <kM5zd.41613$GK5.1995599@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>>"jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If text has been edited out to refrain from scrolling down, then what
>>>is the point of bottom posting since there is no "thread" to speak of?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ahhhh! Comparative newbies everywhere. <big grin>
>>
>>To first answer your question above...
>>
>>Bottom posting, like a conversation, is the "answer" to what was quoted above
>>it. This convention was established and was widely practiced before there
>>even WAS a world-wide web and well before most participants here even had a
>>computer in their home, much less posted articles to usenet.
>>
>>
>
>How often, in spoken conversation, do you quote back to someone what
>they just said before giving your reply? Therefore your analogy is
>bogus. In a top posted thread, new material is available imediately
>and the original post to which the respondent is replying represents
>what *they* said beforehand.
>
>
>andyt
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:33:45 PM

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

I also agree that TOP post is more convenience and practical. Of
course sometimes, Bottom post is preferred. It is not very often.
Let's be civil. We all try to tolerate whatever the posting style is.
I myself and I hope most of other TOP posters, do not demand everyone
only TOP posting. At the same time I hope those who prefer Bottom
post do not demand everyone only bottom posting. Thanks in advance.

In article <tt73t05eol8enineqg68tg77vpe42up8sr@4ax.com>,
Tedd Belle <jon@home.com> wrote:
>top/bottom posting threads are the longest threads on usenet :) 
>
>I agree with TOP - for same reasons "Image..." documented so well.
>
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:13:07 -0500, "imagejunkie" <nh@nh.net> wrote:
>
>>Well I much prefer the posting of new text at the TOP of the post for very
>>PRACTICAL reasons: This way I can immediately tell if the exchange has any
>>interest for me without scrolling - if I can't figure out what the reference
>>is to or if I want to see the full original text, I can then take the time
>>to scroll down to take a look. This is particularly convenient when looking
>>at multiple responses within a long thread where posting new text at the
>>bottom of each response requires a bunch of time-wasting scrolling past
>>stuff you've probably already seen. Personally, I don't care what
>>convention is or has been - base your choice on pragmatic, practical
>>reasoning. For me, that means putting new text at the top. You may feel
>>otherwise, and if so I suggest you do it however you feel comfortable and
>>expect others to do the same.
>>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:33:56 PM

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

I agree!

imagejunkie wrote:

>Well I much prefer the posting of new text at the TOP of the post for very
>PRACTICAL reasons: This way I can immediately tell if the exchange has any
>interest for me without scrolling - if I can't figure out what the reference
>is to or if I want to see the full original text, I can then take the time
>to scroll down to take a look. This is particularly convenient when looking
>at multiple responses within a long thread where posting new text at the
>bottom of each response requires a bunch of time-wasting scrolling past
>stuff you've probably already seen. Personally, I don't care what
>convention is or has been - base your choice on pragmatic, practical
>reasoning. For me, that means putting new text at the top. You may feel
>otherwise, and if so I suggest you do it however you feel comfortable and
>expect others to do the same.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:44:52 AM

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

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:09:00 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>Oh! goodie....I get so little opportunity to be evil...money being the route
>of it and all.
>
>
Common mistake...
it is the love of money that is the root of all evil
hust a bit of trivia
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 1:09:49 PM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
[]
> Then I am correct in pointing out that you analogy doesn't work, since
> quotes of what other people just said do not ever appear in a book. So
> to compare the position of quotes in a response to the flow of a book
> is not a valid comparison and is misleading.

In many articles and books, text wich is not directly relevant to the flow
of information is placed outside the body of the main narrative. I am
suggesting this for referenced Web sites etc., and indeed most people
already do this.

For the cut and thrust of discussion, I am suggesting that everything
should be sequence, with the older material at the top to help others
follow the discussion, just like I have done here. I have certainly seen
this style in books.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 1:57:14 PM

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

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:09:49 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>[]
>> Then I am correct in pointing out that you analogy doesn't work, since
>> quotes of what other people just said do not ever appear in a book. So
>> to compare the position of quotes in a response to the flow of a book
>> is not a valid comparison and is misleading.
>
>In many articles and books, text wich is not directly relevant to the flow
>of information is placed outside the body of the main narrative. I am
>suggesting this for referenced Web sites etc., and indeed most people
>already do this.

Sure. But this is providing external references not quotes of what
someone else said earlier. The top posting discussion is about the
positioning of the verbatim quotes of what was said in the previous
post - something which never happens in a book.


>For the cut and thrust of discussion, I am suggesting that everything
>should be sequence, with the older material at the top to help others
>follow the discussion, just like I have done here. I have certainly seen
>this style in books.

Really? When in a book have you *ever* seen a verbatim quote of what
has previously said by another writer earlier in that book - perhaps
only on the previous page? It simply doesn't happen and therefore your
analogy remains totally bogus.


andyt
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 5:27:18 PM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
[]
>> For the cut and thrust of discussion, I am suggesting that everything
>> should be sequence, with the older material at the top to help others
>> follow the discussion, just like I have done here. I have certainly
>> seen this style in books.
>
> Really? When in a book have you *ever* seen a verbatim quote of what
> has previously said by another writer earlier in that book - perhaps
> only on the previous page? It simply doesn't happen and therefore your
> analogy remains totally bogus.

I am thinking of literary or scientifc criticism where phrases or
paragraphs may be quoted. It have also seen this where people are
commenting on diary extracts. These are some examples of a two-writer
metaphor. In such cases, the quoted text is printed above the comment.

You are taking what I am saying rather literally - I am simply trying to
find examples of the sort of discourse we are having where examples of
best practice in another field may help us formulate best practice here.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:07:51 PM

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

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:27:18 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>[]
>>> For the cut and thrust of discussion, I am suggesting that everything
>>> should be sequence, with the older material at the top to help others
>>> follow the discussion, just like I have done here. I have certainly
>>> seen this style in books.
>>
>> Really? When in a book have you *ever* seen a verbatim quote of what
>> has previously said by another writer earlier in that book - perhaps
>> only on the previous page? It simply doesn't happen and therefore your
>> analogy remains totally bogus.
>
>I am thinking of literary or scientifc criticism where phrases or
>paragraphs may be quoted. It have also seen this where people are
>commenting on diary extracts. These are some examples of a two-writer
>metaphor.

Sure, but that is a quote of something from another source, not a
quote to recap what has previously and originally been said in the
same place (or thread in this case). Like I asked before, when have
you *ever* seen a book regularly quoting what was *originally* said by
another writer in the same book?


> In such cases, the quoted text is printed above the comment.

And in many cases, comments are made about a quote before the quote is
presented since the writer may wish for you to read the quote whilst
bearing in mind his comments. In literary criticism this often happens
where the writer may say "read the following passage and notice how
the protagonist tries to..." etc..

But even so, this is *not* the sort of quotes that we are discussing
here.


>You are taking what I am saying rather literally - I am simply trying to
>find examples of the sort of discourse we are having where examples of
>best practice in another field may help us formulate best practice here.

Communication via usenet and email threads do not have any other
parallel that I know of or that has ever been shown to me. These
threads consist of multiple people, all speaking in first person, but
not in real time (hence the need for quotes, unlike IRC or any IM
system). It's folly to expect people to use a system which relates to
a totally different medium or, as you did, use an analogy with this
totally different medium to try and make a point.



andyt
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:43:18 AM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
[]
>> You are taking what I am saying rather literally - I am simply
>> trying to find examples of the sort of discourse we are having where
>> examples of best practice in another field may help us formulate
>> best practice here.
>
> Communication via usenet and email threads do not have any other
> parallel that I know of or that has ever been shown to me. These
> threads consist of multiple people, all speaking in first person, but
> not in real time (hence the need for quotes, unlike IRC or any IM
> system). It's folly to expect people to use a system which relates to
> a totally different medium or, as you did, use an analogy with this
> totally different medium to try and make a point.

Sending e-mails is remarkably similar to snail-mail, simply faster. A lot
has been learned from snail-mail in the development of e-mail, CC:, BCC:,
envelopes etc., concepts which people understand and have found useful to
adopt. Please note that I used the word "help". Not "dictate", or "copy
without question" - just to adopt those practices which may be useful.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 3:37:05 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:43:18 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>[]
>>> You are taking what I am saying rather literally - I am simply
>>> trying to find examples of the sort of discourse we are having where
>>> examples of best practice in another field may help us formulate
>>> best practice here.
>>
>> Communication via usenet and email threads do not have any other
>> parallel that I know of or that has ever been shown to me. These
>> threads consist of multiple people, all speaking in first person, but
>> not in real time (hence the need for quotes, unlike IRC or any IM
>> system). It's folly to expect people to use a system which relates to
>> a totally different medium or, as you did, use an analogy with this
>> totally different medium to try and make a point.
>
>Sending e-mails is remarkably similar to snail-mail, simply faster.

Oh come on! Since when did anyone, in a snail mail conversation ever
quote back someone's mail (presumably by typing it out again), before
adding their response? I'm *astounded* that you're still trying to
make out that this is a valid analogy!


> A lot has been learned from snail-mail in the development of e-mail, CC:,
> BCC:, envelopes etc., concepts which people understand and have found
> useful to adopt. Please note that I used the word "help". Not "dictate", or "copy
>without question" - just to adopt those practices which may be useful.

And those are all practices which have parallels and *can* be carried
over. However, verbatim quotes of what has been said before *do not*
have a parallel and thus there is no precedent in snail mail, in books
or any other bogus analogy you've chosen to present!



andyt
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:38:33 PM

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

Andy,

I am suggesting using best practices from other established disciplines
where appropriate, not that there is something which is completely
analogous to newsgroup conversations already in existence. Perhaps the
nearest might be the debating chamber where the verbal debate is presented
in time sequence, and the written report is top to bottom in time
sequence.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:55:19 PM

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:38:33 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy,

It speaks volumes that each time I point out how your analogy or your
source for standards doesn't apply... you snip it entirely in your
response. This time choosing to snip my entire post and then post the
same bogus suggestions all over again.


>I am suggesting using best practices from other established disciplines
>where appropriate, not that there is something which is completely
>analogous to newsgroup conversations already in existence.

But we're talking about the position of verbatim quotes of what
someone else said in the previous post of the thread. For this, there
is no established practice in any other medium.


> Perhaps the nearest might be the debating chamber where the
> verbal debate is presented in time sequence, and the written report
> is top to bottom in time sequence.

Er... but surely there is *no* quoting of what was said earlier in the
same report? So how is that remotely relevant?!

And in any case, many people who are against top-posting actually
prefer to single out points and use this (as I am using) interleaved
style (where the timeline is *not* presented in "time sequence", since
it is mixed between quote, response and then quote again) - are you
seeking to rule out that style also?


I'm astounded that you're being so obstinate about this. Why do you
have to try and shoehorn usenet practices into such an irrelevant
analogy rather than just let people use it how they see fit? Usenet
will find its own standards based on what people prefer to do. This
has already mutated over time and may well do so again. There needs to
be no rules for this, nor any bogus and irrelevant precursor.



andyt
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:12:04 PM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:38:33 -0000, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>
> It speaks volumes that each time I point out how your analogy or your
> source for standards doesn't apply... you snip it entirely in your
> response. This time choosing to snip my entire post and then post the
> same bogus suggestions all over again.

I am /not/ trying to say things are analogous - simply that we may be able
to learn from other media.

> But we're talking about the position of verbatim quotes of what
> someone else said in the previous post of the thread. For this, there
> is no established practice in any other medium.

I suggested that reporting of verbal debate was similar.

>> Perhaps the nearest might be the debating chamber where the
>> verbal debate is presented in time sequence, and the written report
>> is top to bottom in time sequence.
>
> Er... but surely there is *no* quoting of what was said earlier in the
> same report? So how is that remotely relevant?!

The report carries all items which are spoken.

> And in any case, many people who are against top-posting actually
> prefer to single out points and use this (as I am using) interleaved
> style (where the timeline is *not* presented in "time sequence", since
> it is mixed between quote, response and then quote again) - are you
> seeking to rule out that style also?

I'm not seeking to rule anything "in" or "out". I'm saying we can perhaps
learn from what has gone before. Do you disagree with that?

> I'm astounded that you're being so obstinate about this. Why do you
> have to try and shoehorn usenet practices into such an irrelevant
> analogy rather than just let people use it how they see fit? Usenet
> will find its own standards based on what people prefer to do. This
> has already mutated over time and may well do so again. There needs to
> be no rules for this, nor any bogus and irrelevant precursor.

I am /not/ shoehorning anything! Simply that we can perhaps learn from
what has gone before. If something is relevant and useful, use it, if
not, discard it.

For example, we have found in digital photography that having the concept
of the "negative" and the "print" to be useful in organising our
photogrpahs. "Negatives" are what come straight out of the camera, and
are archived after deleting obvious failures. "Prints" are what happens
after post-processing and are what might be used for a slide-show or
actually making physical prints. Just because we've used one part of the
process doesn't mean that we cut up our negatives into folder with only
strips of six!

David
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 5:05:16 PM

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:12:04 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:38:33 -0000, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy,
>>
>> It speaks volumes that each time I point out how your analogy or your
>> source for standards doesn't apply... you snip it entirely in your
>> response. This time choosing to snip my entire post and then post the
>> same bogus suggestions all over again.
>
>I am /not/ trying to say things are analogous - simply that we may be able
>to learn from other media.

But there is *no* precedent where a given document is presented as a
thread and the thread contains verbatim quotes of immediately prior
sections of that thread. If there was then perhaps we could learn from
it - but there isn't. End of story.



>> But we're talking about the position of verbatim quotes of what
>> someone else said in the previous post of the thread. For this, there
>> is no established practice in any other medium.
>
>I suggested that reporting of verbal debate was similar.

Well it isn't, simply because a report of a verbal debate does *not*
contain repeated quotes of what was said earlier in that same
document. It's not relevant. At all!



>>> Perhaps the nearest might be the debating chamber where the
>>> verbal debate is presented in time sequence, and the written report
>>> is top to bottom in time sequence.
>>
>> Er... but surely there is *no* quoting of what was said earlier in the
>> same report? So how is that remotely relevant?!
>
>The report carries all items which are spoken.

But not quotes of what is said earlier in the same document! Which is
what we're supposed to discussing here!

I'm starting to think you're really just not understanding what the
issue of top posting actually relates to! To make the suggestion as
you have above would seem to indicate this.



>> And in any case, many people who are against top-posting actually
>> prefer to single out points and use this (as I am using) interleaved
>> style (where the timeline is *not* presented in "time sequence", since
>> it is mixed between quote, response and then quote again) - are you
>> seeking to rule out that style also?
>
>I'm not seeking to rule anything "in" or "out". I'm saying we can perhaps
>learn from what has gone before. Do you disagree with that?

Of course we can learn from what has gone before, but only if it is
relevant and is applyable in the circumstance. But WRT reference or
context quoting in Usenet/Email, there is nothing that has "gone
before" that we can learn from. Nothing.



>> I'm astounded that you're being so obstinate about this. Why do you
>> have to try and shoehorn usenet practices into such an irrelevant
>> analogy rather than just let people use it how they see fit? Usenet
>> will find its own standards based on what people prefer to do. This
>> has already mutated over time and may well do so again. There needs to
>> be no rules for this, nor any bogus and irrelevant precursor.
>
>I am /not/ shoehorning anything! Simply that we can perhaps learn from
>what has gone before. If something is relevant and useful, use it, if
>not, discard it.

Sure, but in this case you have yet to present a process in prior
media where the same document (or book, or in this case, thread),
contains verbatim quotes of what has been said before by other people
such that if you read the document/book/thread in one sitting from
start to finish, you'd see the same text over and over again as people
quote and re quote it (as you would do reading a usenet thread).



>For example, we have found in digital photography that having the concept
>of the "negative" and the "print" to be useful in organising our
>photogrpahs. "Negatives" are what come straight out of the camera, and
>are archived after deleting obvious failures. "Prints" are what happens
>after post-processing and are what might be used for a slide-show or
>actually making physical prints. Just because we've used one part of the
>process doesn't mean that we cut up our negatives into folder with only
>strips of six!

Well for a start I've never heard the terminology passed over like
that - I'd usually talk of originals or raw images and my processed or
touched-up versions. And secondly, you're only discussing the passover
of terminology - not behaviour, which is what the top-posting issue is
all about.

But that's beside the point - I'm not suggesting that we can't ever
learn from or apply old terminology or behaviour to new technology -
just that you have to be aware that sometimes it simply doesn't work.
If the new technology has no appropriate precursor (and in the case of
usenet/email quote positioning, it hasn't), then it's stupid and a
folly to try and shoehorn some inappropriate rules in place,
especially when they are often in conflict with how many people would
wish to use that new technology.



andyt
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 6:00:51 PM

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

Andy Turner wrote:
[]
> andyt

I can see that we are not going to agree on this, so I am regretfully
terminating the discussion.

David
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:18:09 PM

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:00:51 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>[]
>> andyt
>
>I can see that we are not going to agree on this, so I am regretfully
>terminating the discussion.

Hmm.. without once actually coming up with a valid precedent where
quotes of what has been said previously in the document are quoted
verbatim repeatedly further on in the document, as per in a usenet
thread.

I'd like to think that the penny finally dropped and my efforts were
not wasted.


andyt
!