Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hi-Def DirecTivo: $400 Toshiba vs. $900 Hughes?

Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 3:55:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
one from Toshiba at:

http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100....

But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:

http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?...
=1

Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
info.


-Vik
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 3:55:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Vik Rubenfeld wrote:
> I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
> one from Toshiba

It is not a DirecTiVo.

> Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
> info.

Recording capability:
HR10-250 = up to 30 hours HDTV, up to 200 hours standard def.
Toshiba = 0 hours. DirecTV and ATSC receiver; no hard disk.

-Joe
Related resources
April 4, 2005 4:08:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Vik Rubenfeld" <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:vikr-6F2E4C.16554003042005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
> one from Toshiba at:
>
> http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100....
>
> But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
>
> http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?...
> =1
>
> Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
> info.

Well, excuse me if I am missing something in the description, but that
Toshiba isn't a TiVo. In fact, it doesn't appear to be any kind of DVR.
April 5, 2005 4:29:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:55:45 GMT, Vik Rubenfeld
<vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:

>I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
>one from Toshiba at:
>
>http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100....
>
>But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
>
>http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?...
>=1
>
>Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
>info.
>
>
>-Vik

Get your cable co's dvr. It's HD + Free.

Sean
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:30:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

The biggest drawback is that the Toshiba has a 0 hour record time - it is
not a DVR.

Cable DVR's are not "free", the cable service will cost you at about $30 or
$40 a month more for the same service.
"Sean" <none> wrote in message
news:h7f551hfe44bdsilgiifnsebmg26dbdmme@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:55:45 GMT, Vik Rubenfeld
> <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
>>one from Toshiba at:
>>
>>http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100....
>>
>>But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
>>
>>http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?...
>>=1
>>
>>Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
>>info.
>>
>>
>>-Vik
>
> Get your cable co's dvr. It's HD + Free.
>
> Sean
>
April 5, 2005 7:19:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:25:40 -0700, "Fred Bloggs" <SPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The biggest drawback is that the Toshiba has a 0 hour record time - it is
>not a DVR.
>
>Cable DVR's are not "free", the cable service will cost you at about $30 or
>$40 a month more for the same service.
>"Sean" <none> wrote in message
>news:h7f551hfe44bdsilgiifnsebmg26dbdmme@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:55:45 GMT, Vik Rubenfeld
>> <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
>>>one from Toshiba at:
>>>
>>>http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100....
>>>
>>>But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
>>>
>>>http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?...
>>>=1
>>>
>>>Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
>>>info.
>>>
>>>
>>>-Vik
>>
>> Get your cable co's dvr. It's HD + Free.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>


The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.

Sean
April 6, 2005 12:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.

And non snipping twits like you. Well thats only ONE of your many flaws
but this is usenet and I dont have time to write a book this month.

--
David
April 6, 2005 4:44:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:16:43 GMT, SINNER
<arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote:

>* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>
>> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
>

Thanks for agreeing with me David.

Sean
April 6, 2005 5:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Sean <none> wrote:
>
> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
>
> Sean

Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
fresh air why don't you?

~~Phil~~

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 9:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

When "bottom posting twits" quote more than one screenfull
I usually skip to the next post without paging down to read
the new remarks. Sean is in a rules list to be ignored,
so I don't see his posts unless someone quotes one.

"PHIL" <Invalid_Email@dot.com> wrote in message news:20050406090656.661$pX@newsreader.com...
> Sean <none> wrote:
> >
> > The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
> >
> > Sean
>
> Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
> panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
> fresh air why don't you?
>
> ~~Phil~~
>
> --
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Sean" <none> wrote in message
news:te4851tpdj7ofl034h37f61sltgi991f9q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:16:43 GMT, SINNER
> <arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote:
>
>>* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>>
>>> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
>>
>
> Thanks for agreeing with me David.
>
> Sean

If one uses Outlook Express as a newsreader--which is usually the case--the
cursor appears at the top, ready for top posting. They could just as easily
have placed it at the bottom. Therefore, I'm going to make the perhaps
unwarranted assumption that OE prefers, or at least expects, top posting.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 5:18:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Ak wrote:
> So one expects strangers in newsgroups to posit correct posting
style?

There is a well understood acceptable posting style for USENET. You
just appear not to know what it is.

Go to goole and search for 'correct USENET posting style' and you'll
see that strangers and non-strangers alike agree that top-posting is
not correct posting style.

> You can post addenda where you like and the rest of us will do the
same.

We can't easily prevent you - is that what you're going for? Not a
very friendly attitude.

> If you like it "doggie style" that doesn't imply the rest of us
should.

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, to be part of a community, you
should at least attempt to fit into that community and a good start
with that fitting in would be to learn the practices and customs
expected of a member. Top-posting isn't one of them (there are others
though so you should do some research on this before posting again).

If you don't like the practices and customs of a given community,
you're welcome to not participate but don't blame us when you violate
these understood rules and people mention it to you.
April 7, 2005 10:28:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* Jack Ak Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

> So one expects strangers in newsgroups to posit correct posting
> style?

Yes, part of belonging to the usenet community requires lurking and
learning the culture of the news group BEFORE posting.

> You can post addenda where you like and the rest of us will
> do the same.
>
> If you like it "doggie style" that doesn't imply the rest of us
> should.

Its not a matter if Like. I dont LIKE to Drive 55 but I do. Granted,
posting style is not a law but there are accepted/expected conventions,
not following them has its own consequences.

--
David
April 8, 2005 2:14:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 13:18:24 -0700, in2sheep@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>Jack Ak wrote:
>> So one expects strangers in newsgroups to posit correct posting
>style?
>
>There is a well understood acceptable posting style for USENET. You
>just appear not to know what it is.
>
>Go to goole and search for 'correct USENET posting style' and you'll
>see that strangers and non-strangers alike agree that top-posting is
>not correct posting style.
>
>> You can post addenda where you like and the rest of us will do the
>same.
>
>We can't easily prevent you - is that what you're going for? Not a
>very friendly attitude.
>
>> If you like it "doggie style" that doesn't imply the rest of us
>should.
>
>It doesn't matter if you like it or not, to be part of a community, you
>should at least attempt to fit into that community and a good start
>with that fitting in would be to learn the practices and customs
>expected of a member. Top-posting isn't one of them (there are others
>though so you should do some research on this before posting again).
>
>If you don't like the practices and customs of a given community,
>you're welcome to not participate but don't blame us when you violate
>these understood rules and people mention it to you.

Me too.

Sean
April 12, 2005 1:00:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Couldn't have said it better. The people who get uptight about this minor
issue are really silly (I'm trying to keep it clean).

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com


"PHIL" <Invalid_Email@dot.com> wrote in message
news:20050406090656.661$pX@newsreader.com...
> Sean <none> wrote:
>>
>> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
>>
>> Sean
>
> Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
> panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
> fresh air why don't you?
>
> ~~Phil~~
>
> --
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:37:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
>>>because they *aren't* laws.
>>
>
> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?

Heh, that one was mine, but you took it out of context. I was trying to
point that just because something *isn't* a law doesn't mean it doesn't
have value or shouldn't be followed. If everyone benefits, it just
makes good sense, just like my examples from above, i.e. talking during
a movie or walking on the right side of a crowded hallway. I was
basically refuting his "Usenet cops" tantrum.

I think we're on the same page ;-).

Randy S.
April 12, 2005 10:37:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 3hik0$l78$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> >>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
> >>>because they *aren't* laws.
> >>
> >
> > So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
> > or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?
>
> Heh, that one was mine, but you took it out of context. I was trying to
> point that just because something *isn't* a law doesn't mean it doesn't
> have value or shouldn't be followed. If everyone benefits, it just
> makes good sense, just like my examples from above, i.e. talking during
> a movie or walking on the right side of a crowded hallway. I was
> basically refuting his "Usenet cops" tantrum.

LOL. He took a lot of stuff out of context.


>
> I think we're on the same page ;-).
>
> Randy S.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:16:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> My last thoughts on this subject:
>
> 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
> valid.

Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
out and say they stand for different things?

> 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.

Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for everyone.

> 3. Many people will post how they want and a few will bitch about it. Others
> will either read the posts or not.

Many people top post because they're new to Usenet and e-mail seems to
default to top posting and that's what they're used to. But e-mail is
different and top posting works better there (since generally you've
read all the quoted text previously). But try reading someone *elses*
long email message with multiple levels of top-posted quoted text, it's
a real pain! Most new usenet users listen to the advice, understand the
logic behind it, appreciate it, and play nicely with others.

> 4. Usenet is full of anal-retentive people who once read something and
> forever take it to be true when in reality everything changes. The language
> changes, the internet changes, cars change, morals change, everything
> changes. Deal with it.

Yes, things change. Usually to changes in the environment. But the
Usenet environment hasn't really changed that much (there's been a few,
like cancels basically being ignored now). Can you point out a listing
of these "changed" rules? Because we can fairly easily point out sites
with a listing of Usenet etiquette. Like here:
http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/

Note the first link. I swear to god this was the first google hit for
Usenet Etiquette.

> 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't approve of
> the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from people
> that are less regimented.

Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
posts more readable for everyone (see link above).

> 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you usenet
> cops would have made fine Nazis.

Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
Nazis.

> 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You can't
> control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet world.

Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
with "control".

> 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
> further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses would
> be lined up in a perfect grid.

Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
characterize it as "only". But I think your assertion is backwards.
Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
*older* not younger.

Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
*shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
other things).

Randy S.
April 13, 2005 3:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* Randy S. wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>>>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
>>>>because they *aren't* laws.


>> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
>> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?

> Heh, that one was mine, but you took it out of context.

Oops :) 

> I was trying to
> point that just because something *isn't* a law doesn't mean it doesn't
> have value or shouldn't be followed. If everyone benefits, it just
> makes good sense, just like my examples from above, i.e. talking during
> a movie or walking on the right side of a crowded hallway. I was
> basically refuting his "Usenet cops" tantrum.

> I think we're on the same page ;-).

I'd agree :) 

--
David
"You're just the sort of person I imagined marrying, when I was little...
except, y'know, not green... and without all the patches of fungus."
-- Swamp Thing
April 13, 2005 3:50:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* RG wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

> "SINNER" <arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9636AC933615Louiscypherhellorg@140.99.99.130...
>> * RG Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

>> > FYI, so you won't get confused, I am bottom posting responses to
>> > several of your comments.


>> [please note the poorly wrapped text from your broken newsreader]

> Yeah but it's the newsreader I have and it's really all I want to have.

So FIX it. Do you drive your car for thousands of miles when the muffler
has a hole without fixing it?

> This
> also further proves my point, you guys just can't ignore anything can you?

Cant ignore it because it is not ignorable, it screws with the flow of
the conversation which is the primary purpose of Usenet to begin with.
If the quote levels aren't valid how is one to know who said what?

[...]

>> > I grasp exactly what is
>> > happening here. I see anal-retentive people trying to force their
>> > thoughts on other people.

>> You mean like the state legistlature telling you can only drive 55 on
>> the highway? If you break that law do you always get a ticket? No,
>> does it piss other moterists off? sometimes. does it result in road
>> rage? yes. So you have road rage because YOU did something wrong or
>> the someone you dont even know did and was called on it?

> Seems to me you usenet cops are the ones suffering from rage.

You were the one who posted about being disgusted. Me, I'm fine, thanks
for asking.

>>Usenet is
>> self policing, its is still around BECAUSE of it not in spite of it.
>> deal with, learn to use a killfile or go read a web forum.

> I think it is still around in spite of you usenet cops, not because of you.

You'd be wrong.

> I think you need to take your own advice also "deal with, learn to use a
> killfile or go read a web forum"

No thanks. I can conform, in fact I have. It wasn't difficult, really.

>> > You can say what you want but the fact
>> > remains that you or your fellow usenet cops got involved in a
>> > thread for no other reason than to tell someone they weren't
>> > posting correctly.

>> So?

> My point exactly.

There was no point, hence the 'So?'

>> >> Nobody's arguing about "rules" or laws, they're discussing
>> >> "polite" conventions. We deal with these every day in everyday
>> >> activities, so it's not a new thing.

>> > Perhaps you need to read my response again, I never used the terms
>> > rules or laws.
>> > Where I come from it is considered very rude and low class to
>> > correct someone in a public situation especially when it involves
>> > harmless behavior. I guess your idea of "polite" conventions
>> > includes everyone doing things the way you prefer.


>> Where I come from its considered rude to go into someone elses haouse
>> and leave your shoed on if they ask you to take them off.

> But usenet isn't your house, it is a public building.

So is it OK to act a fool in a public place or are there accepted
conventions for entering for instance, the court house?

[...]
>> > It isn't equivalent to any of those physical activities. I can't
>> > ignore you talking in a theater or walking on the wrong side but
>> > usenet isn't a physical world and don't compare it to the physical
>> > world.

>> I cant IGNORE you until I see the behavior, same in the physical
>> world.

> Sure you can, with a killfile. You don't have to look in every post.

So because you cant follow a few simple 'suggestions' I need to become
clairvoyant now? Now that I have seen the behavior, yes I can killfile
you but why bother.

[...]

>> > I think it is easier for everyone to post however they want in
>> > usenet

>> Anarchy rules, yeah that works...

> That kinda sums up a usenet cop's personality doesn't it? Top posting is
> real anarchy.......and anything else that isn't done exactly how you think
> it should be

Dude, seriously, get a grip. Were you allowed out past 7 on school
nights? Rules really aren't that bad. Your post denouncing the standards
is just as uninviting as net copping.

>> > while you think it is better for everyone to post the way
>> > you want.

>> That where you are missing the point, he wants everyone to post THE
>> SAME and LOGICALLY not HIS way, the established way.

> Drivel, just absolute drivel.

Funny how that drivel has been and continues to be the standard.

>> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
>> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?

> That was not a part of my post.

Yes, I know. Its that damn client of yours making one second guess the
quote levels.

>> I'm sure with posts like this one you get ignored quite a bit. Whose
>> loss is that exactly?

> Killfile me. I think I can handle having you ignore me.

Too much effort on someone I could care less about, killfiles are for
trolls and spam.

>> > Top posting causes you no real physical problems.

>> Unless you consider trying to read something that is out of order a
>> physical problem.

> I don't, do you?

Yes. Reading is a physical act and posting out of order makes this act
more difficult.

>> > If you just
>> > can't stand top posting then don't read them. It's as simply as
>> > that.

>> Got to open it to see it top posted.

> I think it is safe to say that some of my posts will be top posted. Kilfile
> me, save yourself some trouble.

It's no trouble, really

> My last thoughts on this subject:

> 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
> valid.

Complete and utter nonsense, its quotes like that, that create keyboard
jockeys.

> 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.

If you are playing Jeopardy maybe.

> 3. Many people will post how they want and a few will bitch about it. Others
> will either read the posts or not.

And still others will do the right thing and conform.

> 4. Usenet is full of anal-retentive people who once read something and
> forever take it to be true when in reality everything changes. The language
> changes, the internet changes, cars change, morals change, everything
> changes. Deal with it.

Yet reading English hasn't changed in at least my 37 years. I still read
from top to bottom and left to right.

> 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't approve of
> the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from people
> that are less regimented.

And?

> 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you usenet
> cops would have made fine Nazis.

So anyone that follows rules is a NA*I? We all know when you drop the
keyboard you don't really act like that.

> 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You can't
> control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet world.

I have total control over everything effecting my life. You should read
Seven Habits ...

> 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
> further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses would
> be lined up in a perfect grid.

Neither of those are true of me.

> My advice to you would be to killfile me. I will probably killfile you.

Se la vie...
--
David
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion.
- attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:36:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

RG wrote:

> 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.

That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
logical.
-Joe
April 13, 2005 12:59:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Amen.

"Jeff" <jeff@falsepart.com> wrote in message
news:JAY6e.62675$NC6.59114@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> Couldn't have said it better. The people who get uptight about this minor
> issue are really silly (I'm trying to keep it clean).
>
> --
>
> Jeff Stevens
> Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
> jeff@stevens.com
>
>
> "PHIL" <Invalid_Email@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:20050406090656.661$pX@newsreader.com...
> > Sean <none> wrote:
> >>
> >> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
> >>
> >> Sean
> >
> > Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
> > panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
> > fresh air why don't you?
> >
> > ~~Phil~~
> >
> > --
> > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> > Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
>
>
April 13, 2005 1:02:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few lines to
the bottom?


"Joe Smith" <joe@inwap.com> wrote in message
news:NqCdnel7F_KVR8HfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> RG wrote:
>
> > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
post.
>
> That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
> of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
> article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
> logical.
> -Joe
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:20:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>>2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
>
> post.
>
>>That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
>>of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
>>article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
>>logical.
>>-Joe
>
RG wrote:
> Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few
lines to
> the bottom?
>
>

No, but that's a different courtesy entirely, snipping out unneeded
content. If you agree that it's courteous to not quote unnecessarily,
why can't you agree that it's courteous to bottom-post rather than top
post? What makes one courtesy valid, and the other one invalid? Who
draws the line, and why?

Randy S.
April 13, 2005 2:28:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:37:51 -0400, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>>>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
>>>>because they *aren't* laws.
>>>
>>
>> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
>> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?
>

That no swimmimg after you eat thing is just an old
"siginficant-other" tale.

Sean
April 13, 2005 2:29:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:02:31 -0500, "RG" <No@nfw.com> wrote:

>Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few lines to
>the bottom?
>
>
>"Joe Smith" <joe@inwap.com> wrote in message
>news:NqCdnel7F_KVR8HfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>> RG wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
>post.
>>
>> That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
>> of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
>> article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
>> logical.
>> -Joe
>

Yes.

Sean
April 13, 2005 2:45:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....


"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> > My last thoughts on this subject:
> >
> > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
> > valid.
>
> Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
> things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
> disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
> people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
> that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
> out and say they stand for different things?

Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
Social skills is a two-edged sword.

>
> > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
post.
>
> Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
> at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
> that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
> screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
> multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
> convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
> better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
everyone.

I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
deal".
Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
interleaving because that IS the most understandable.

***snipped text***


> > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
approve of
> > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
people
> > that are less regimented.
>
> Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
> posts more readable for everyone (see link above).

I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
top posting twits like you."
If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
socially acceptable to you?

>
> > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you
usenet
> > cops would have made fine Nazis.
>
> Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
> flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
> aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
> like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
> As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
> I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
> I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
> Nazis.

So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
good Nazi? That sure makes sense.

Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?

>
> > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
can't
> > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet
world.
>
> Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
> make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
> to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
> with "control".

If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.

>
> > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
> > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses
would
> > be lined up in a perfect grid.
>
> Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
> point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
> characterize it as "only".

An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps if I
had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child" it
would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.

But I think your assertion is backwards.
> Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
> *older* not younger.
>
> Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
> typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
> this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
> *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
> that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
> other things).

You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
a manner that you and some others prefer.

You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
experience to either one of us.




>
> Randy S.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:45:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
bottom-posting look like?

Derek




In article <kbb7e.11336$L64.3689@okepread07>, RG <No@nfw.com> wrote:

> In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....
>
>
> "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> > > My last thoughts on this subject:
> > >
> > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
> > > valid.
> >
> > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
> > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
> > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
> > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
> > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
> > out and say they stand for different things?
>
> Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
> that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
> An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
> open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
> that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
> agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
> three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
> chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
> you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
> way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
> not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
> shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
> behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
> stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
> Social skills is a two-edged sword.
>
> >
> > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
> post.
> >
> > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
> > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
> > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
> > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
> > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
> > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
> > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
> everyone.
>
> I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
> deal".
> Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
> interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
>
> ***snipped text***
>
>
> > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
> approve of
> > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
> people
> > > that are less regimented.
> >
> > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
> > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
>
> I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
> top posting twits like you."
> If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
> socially acceptable to you?
>
> >
> > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you
> usenet
> > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
> >
> > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
> > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
> > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
> > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
> > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
> > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
> > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
> > Nazis.
>
> So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
> good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
>
> Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
> I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
> and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
> I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?
>
> >
> > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
> can't
> > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet
> world.
> >
> > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
> > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
> > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
> > with "control".
>
> If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
> same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.
>
> >
> > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
> > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses
> would
> > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
> >
> > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
> > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
> > characterize it as "only".
>
> An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps if I
> had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child" it
> would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
> without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
> understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.
>
> But I think your assertion is backwards.
> > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
> > *older* not younger.
> >
> > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
> > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
> > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
> > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
> > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
> > other things).
>
> You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
> don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
> interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
> rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
> a manner that you and some others prefer.
>
> You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
> another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
> how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
> your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
> experience to either one of us.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Randy S.
>
>
April 13, 2005 3:43:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswittno@spamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 3j9r1$1gg2$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
>
> >>>2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
> >
> > post.
> >
> >>That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
> >>of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
> >>article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
> >>logical.
> >>-Joe
> >
> RG wrote:
> > Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few
> lines to
> > the bottom?
> >
> >
>
> No, but that's a different courtesy entirely, snipping out unneeded
> content. If you agree that it's courteous to not quote unnecessarily,
> why can't you agree that it's courteous to bottom-post rather than top
> post? What makes one courtesy valid, and the other one invalid? Who
> draws the line, and why?

I didn't say it was or was not courteous to snip or not snip. The original
poster implied that top posters would not snip and I don't really think
there is any connection between the two actions. I think courteous behavior
is to not point out to strangers that how to do something that can be done
in many ways and is routinely done in many ways.



>
> Randy S.
April 13, 2005 3:45:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

LOL.

"Derek A. Bill" <derekbill@allsummerlong.com> wrote in message
news:130420051036352543%derekbill@allsummerlong.com...
> When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
> figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
> bottom-posting look like?
>
> Derek
>
>
>
>
> In article <kbb7e.11336$L64.3689@okepread07>, RG <No@nfw.com> wrote:
>
> > In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....
> >
> >
> > "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:D 3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> > > > My last thoughts on this subject:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are
not
> > > > valid.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
> > > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they
*are*
> > > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
> > > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
> > > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now
come
> > > out and say they stand for different things?
> >
> > Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
> > that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you
prefer.
> > An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
> > open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
> > that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
> > agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
> > three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
> > chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions
but do
> > you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress
that
> > way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that
could
> > not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
> > shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
> > behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
> > stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
> > Social skills is a two-edged sword.
> >
> > >
> > > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way
to
> > post.
> > >
> > > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of
text
> > > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post
in
> > > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
> > > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
> > > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much
more
> > > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
> > > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
> > everyone.
> >
> > I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a
big
> > deal".
> > Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I
prefer
> > interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
> >
> > ***snipped text***
> >
> >
> > > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
> > approve of
> > > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
> > people
> > > > that are less regimented.
> > >
> > > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
> > > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
> >
> > I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG
is
> > top posting twits like you."
> > If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term
"twit"
> > socially acceptable to you?
> >
> > >
> > > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains
you
> > usenet
> > > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
> > >
> > > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
> > > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
> > > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
> > > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
> > > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't)
Auschwitz,
> > > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little
offensive.
> > > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
> > > Nazis.
> >
> > So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
> > good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
> >
> > Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the
characteristic
> > I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or
torture
> > and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand
what
> > I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?
> >
> > >
> > > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
> > can't
> > > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the
usenet
> > world.
> > >
> > > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
> > > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least
attempt
> > > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
> > > with "control".
> >
> > If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them
the
> > same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.
> >
> > >
> > > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I
would
> > > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the
glasses
> > would
> > > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
> > >
> > > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at
one
> > > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
> > > characterize it as "only".
> >
> > An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps
if I
> > had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child"
it
> > would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
> > without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
> > understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.
> >
> > But I think your assertion is backwards.
> > > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
> > > *older* not younger.
> > >
> > > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me,
I
> > > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
> > > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
> > > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
> > > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
> > > other things).
> >
> > You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to
post, I
> > don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom
or
> > interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that
it is
> > rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not
posting in
> > a manner that you and some others prefer.
> >
> > You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to
do it
> > another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell
you
> > how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
> > your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
> > experience to either one of us.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Randy S.
> >
> >
April 13, 2005 6:00:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:36:35 -0600, "Derek A. Bill"
<derekbill@allsummerlong.com> wrote:

>When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
>figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
>bottom-posting look like?
>
>Derek
>
>
>
>
>In article <kbb7e.11336$L64.3689@okepread07>, RG <No@nfw.com> wrote:
>
>> In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....
>>
>>
>> "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:D 3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
>> > > My last thoughts on this subject:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
>> > > valid.
>> >
>> > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
>> > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
>> > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
>> > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
>> > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
>> > out and say they stand for different things?
>>
>> Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
>> that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
>> An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
>> open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
>> that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
>> agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
>> three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
>> chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
>> you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
>> way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
>> not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
>> shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
>> behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
>> stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
>> Social skills is a two-edged sword.
>>
>> >
>> > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
>> post.
>> >
>> > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
>> > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
>> > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
>> > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
>> > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
>> > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
>> > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
>> everyone.
>>
>> I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
>> deal".
>> Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
>> interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
>>
>> ***snipped text***
>>
>>
>> > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
>> approve of
>> > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
>> people
>> > > that are less regimented.
>> >
>> > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
>> > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
>>
>> I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
>> top posting twits like you."
>> If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
>> socially acceptable to you?
>>
>> >
>> > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you
>> usenet
>> > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
>> >
>> > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
>> > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
>> > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
>> > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
>> > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
>> > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
>> > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
>> > Nazis.
>>
>> So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
>> good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
>>
>> Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
>> I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
>> and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
>> I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?
>>
>> >
>> > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
>> can't
>> > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet
>> world.
>> >
>> > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
>> > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
>> > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
>> > with "control".
>>
>> If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
>> same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.
>>
>> >
>> > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
>> > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses
>> would
>> > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
>> >
>> > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
>> > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
>> > characterize it as "only".
>>
>> An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps if I
>> had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child" it
>> would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
>> without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
>> understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.
>>
>> But I think your assertion is backwards.
>> > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
>> > *older* not younger.
>> >
>> > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
>> > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
>> > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
>> > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
>> > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
>> > other things).
>>
>> You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
>> don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
>> interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
>> rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
>> a manner that you and some others prefer.
>>
>> You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
>> another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
>> how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
>> your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
>> experience to either one of us.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Randy S.
>>
>>

It looks like the opposite of what a dimwitted doofus
would post.

Sean
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:12:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
> that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
> An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
> open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
> that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
> agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
> three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
> chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
> you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
> way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
> not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
> shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
> behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
> stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
> Social skills is a two-edged sword.

Sure, but there are other times that approaching someone to ask them to
cease or change their behavior is perfectly acceptable if not
commendable. I keep going back to the example of talking during a movie
in a theater. I've seen people ask talkers to be quiet *many* times,
and while the talker may not have appreciated it, everyone else in the
theater did!

Posts on Usenet are not directed towards one or even a couple people to
read, they are directed at the general usenet audience. They should be
constructed in a way that make it easiest for that audience to read it.

>>>2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
>
> post.
>
>>Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
>>at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
>>that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
>>screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
>>multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
>>convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
>>better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
>
> everyone.
>
> I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
> deal".
> Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
> interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
>
> ***snipped text***

Nothing's always black and white. But 99.999% of the time people
top-post because they're lazy, not because it's the best way to do it.

>>>5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't approve of
>>>the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from people
>>>that are less regimented.
>>
>>Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
>>posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
>
> I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
> top posting twits like you."
> If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
> socially acceptable to you?

That particular post was from an entity called "Sean". Please don't
take posts from a bottom-feeding troll as representative of the group.
There's no question that that post is inappropriate and insulting, and
is a horrible way to recommend bottom-posting to someone. It's
basically an indefensible comment.



> So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
> good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
>
> Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
> I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
> and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
> I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?

1 million percent preferred. A lemming did not kill my
great-grandfather. When people use the term "Nazi", blindly following
orders is not what comes to my mind.

>>Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
>>make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
>>to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
>>with "control".
>
>
> If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
> same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.

Agreed. Sean's original post was as infantile as he is. The only reason
I used "lazy and stupid" (and note I only called the accusation that,
not you) was in response to the Nazi comment, which I find abhorrent as
it cheapens what is a *truly* evil concept.

> You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
> don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
> interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
> rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
> a manner that you and some others prefer.
>
> You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
> another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
> how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
> your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
> experience to either one of us.

I think that the biggest gripe is that the *vast* majority of the time,
top-posting is done out of laziness. The past dozen posts in this
thread have been written interleaved, because we both realized that it
was easier to comprehend that way. Imagine how much harder to
comprehend they would have been had they been top *or* bottom posted!
The point was that we both took the effort to compose them in the
clearest manner possible. Many posters don't. If someone top-posts an
"LOL!" on top of a 3 line message it's not going to be hard to
understand. But it's also important to know that there are times that
at top-post *is* hard to understand, and that bottom-posting is clearer
most of the time (unless interleaving makes more sense).

Randy S.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

How is that worse than quoting 300 lines of posting to add one line at the bottom?
I'd say the bottom poster is more thoughtless in this case.

When I don't see unquoted lines in the top two screen pages, I go on to the next post.

"Joe Smith" <joe@inwap.com> wrote in message news:NqCdnel7F_KVR8HfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> RG wrote:
>
> > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.
>
> That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
> of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
> article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
> logical.
> -Joe
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Ak wrote:
> How is that worse than quoting 300 lines of posting to add one line at the bottom?
> I'd say the bottom poster is more thoughtless in this case.
>
> When I don't see unquoted lines in the top two screen pages, I go on to the next post.

Courteous posters also snip out unneeded text. If there are more than 2
screens of quoted text at the top, some of it needed to be snipped or it
should have been an interleaved reply. I think your response to that
type of post is a good one, and I do it myself.

Randy S.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:52:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

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

In article <130420051036352543%derekbill@allsummerlong.com>,
Derek A. Bill <derekbill@allsummerlong.com> top-posted (grr):
>When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
>figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
>bottom-posting look like?

It looks like this.

When I open a post and there's a two- or three-line "reply" followed by 1000
lines of other people's posts reproduced in their entirety, I just figure
the poster is either a clueless n00b or (if it has been educated numerous
times in the past) just plain obstinate. :-P

If this were an online version of Jeopardy!, top-posting might make sense.
It isn't, however, so it doesn't. Post accordingly.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCXWtGVgTKos01OwkRApF8AJ0cu2WLItn1WFGpefwXscXZrR707gCeMrxy
/wXUJWy8jHl44DmqHk1xq34=
=UX9P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
May 5, 2005 11:47:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* Rick S. wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> To me this whole thread is a bunch of anal retentive nonsense -- and you
> didn't have to scroll all the way down to read my two cents.

You added nothing but noise to a dead thread. I dont think anyone
*wanted* to read it. Good Work!

--
David
Small is beautiful.
!